oc<>.=^>^c©:•■0>a^3<»i"<«'-=4.'■°^^'«^^«^'*"*^  if: 


HOFFMANN  BBQS. 

CHURCH 

(0rnHmcnt8,    ^tBtmtnis, 

DBOOIvS, 

MILWAUKIE, 

WIS. 


BERKELEY 

LIBRARY 


t^ 


^i^^ 


ON    THE 


APOSTOLICAL 

AND 

INFALLIBLE  AUTHORITY 

OF  THE 

WHEN    TEACHING    THE    FAITHFUL, 

AND 

ON  Ills  RELATION 

TO 

A  GExXERAL  COUNCIL. 


By   F.    X.    WENINGER,   D.D., 

MISSIONARY   OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  JESUS. 


NEW  YORK: 

O  .    &    J  .    S  A  D  L  I  E  R    &    CO 

CINCINNATI: 

JOHN     P .    WALSH. 


THE  ABBEY  OF 


LOAN  STACK 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1868,  by 

REV.  F.  X.  WENINGER,  D.D.,  S.  J., 

In  tlie  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
Southern  District  of  Ohio. 


BTEEEOTTPED  AT  THE  FBASKLIN  TYPE  FOUNDEY,   CINCINNATI. 


CONTENTS 


Introduction. 


L 
TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

OONCERNIXO  THE   PRIMACY  OF  ST.   PETER,  AS   INVESTED 
WITH  INFALLIBLE  AUTHORITY  IN  MATTERS  OF  FAITH. 


19 


n. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS 

FROM  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ERA,  UNTIL 
THE  DAYS  OF  ST.  BERNARD,  PROCLAIMING  THE  SEE  OP 
ST.  PETER  AT  ROME,  TO  BE  THE  HIGHEST  TRIBUNAL 
IN  MATTERS  OF  FAITH <>-' 

(iii) 

\       815 


IV  CONTENTS. 

m. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ALL  THE  GENERAL  COUNCILS 
OF  THE  EAST  AND  WEST, 

DECLARING  THE  JUDGMENT  OP  THE  CHAIR  OF  ST.  PETER 

AT  ROME,  TO  BE  THE  INFALLIBLE  RULE  OF  FAITH 100 


rv. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES  THEMSELVES, 

ASSERTING   THEIR   PREROGATIVE  AS   THE    SUPREME  AND 

INFALLIBLE  JUDGES  IN  MATTERS    OF  FAITH 154 


V. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES  EXERCISING  THIS 
PREROGATIVE. 

THE  POPES  OP  ALL  CENTURIES,  DEFINITIYELY  BY  THEIR 

OWN  AUTHORITY,  CONDEMNING   HERESY  AND  ERRORS.    176 


CONTENTS.  V 

VI. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  MOST  CELEBRATED  THE- 
OLOGIANS AND  UNIVERSITIES, 

since  the  time  of  thomas  aquinas,  maintaining 
the  infallibility  of  the  pope,  when  speaking 
"ex  cathedra" 198 


VIL 
TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

acknowledging  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE 
TO  BE  THE  HIGHEST  TRIBUNAL  ON  EARTH,  AND  THE 
ROMAN  PONTIFF  THE  INFALLIBLE  JUDGE  IN  MATTERS 
OF  FAITH 218 


VIIL 

THE  "RATIO  THEOLOGICA," 

OR   THE    EVIDENCE    OF   THE    TRUTH    OF   OUR   THESIS   BY 

THE   FORCE    OF  LOGICAL  CONSEQUENCES 248 


Objections  refuted 277 


INTRODUCTION. 


There  are  already,  within  the  reach  of  all, 
standard  works  upon  the  Divine  Institution  of 
the  Papal  Supremacy.  The  same  can  not  be  said 
of  the  several  prerogatives,  consequent  on  the 
Supremacy.  And  yet,  in  these  unstable  times, 
when  the  eyes  of  the  whole  world  are  directed 
toward  the  Holy  See,  as  toward  the  only  safe- 
guard and  stronghold,  not  merely  of  the  Church, 
but  even  of  Christianity,  it  were  desirable  to  have 
at  hand  able  treatises,  setting  forth,  in  detail, 
the  rights  vested  exclusively  in  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff. 

Now,  among  these,  none  is  capable  of  elicit- 

(T) 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

ing  a  more  intense  interest  than  his  Apostolic 
Authority,  as  the  divinely  commissioned  teacher 
of  the  Church.  We  thought,  therefore,  that  we 
should  meet  a  general  want,  by  submitting  to 
the  public  the  present  unpretentious  volume,  in 
which  it  has  been  our  humble  aim  to  collect  an 
invincible  array  of  arguments  in  support  of  the 
point  in  question. 

But,  before  entering  upon  our  task,  we  must 
premise  a  few  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  we  assume  to  establish  the 
infallible  authority  of  the  Pope  within  those  lim- 
its only,  which  are  covered  by  the  very  title  of 
the  book,  namely,  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals. 
We  claim  no  such  privilege  for  the  Head  of  the 
Church  in  scientific  questions,  except  in  so  far  as 
these  touch,  directly  or  indirectly,  upon  the  "  de- 
posit of  faith,'^  and  upon  its  preservation. 

Secondly,  we  ascribe  no  such  infallibility  to  the 
utterances  of  the  Pope,  except  when  he,  as  they 
say,  is  speaking  ^' ex  cathedra/^  which  means, 
when  the  Pope  is  teaching  the  faithful  as  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  the  expounder  of  her 
doctrine.    We  admit  that,  when  he  expresses  his 


rN'TEODUCTION.  9 

opinions  as  a  private  theologian,  he  is  liable  to 
err,  but  not  when  he  solemnly  pronounces  upon 
the  teaching  of  the  Church. 

By  upholding  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
thus  understood,  we,  by  no  means,  derogate  from 
the  authority  of  the  other  prelates  of  the  Church. 
Their  dignity,  as  the  legitimate  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  is  not  at  all  impaired  by  this  privilege 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  because  they  do  not 
represent  the  Apostles  in  the  Apostolate,  but  in 
the  Episcopate.  As  Bishops'  their  dignity  is  tan- 
tamount to  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  from 
whom,  nevertheless,  they  have  received  their 
jurisdiction  over  that  portion  of  Christ's  flock, 
entrusted  to  their  charge ;  not  because  the  Pope 
alone  possesses  the  plenitude  of  the  Episcopal 
character,  but  because  he  alone  represents  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles. 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  flows  altogether 
from  his  Primacy,  and  is  shared  by  no  other 
Prelate,  because  they  can  lay  no  claim  to  the 
Apostolical  authority,  transmitted  by  Peter  to 
his  successors. 

This  prerogative  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  does 


1 0  INTRODUCTION. 

not,  then,  detract  from  tlie  dignity  of  the  other 
Bishops;  on  the  contrary,  it  redounds  to  the 
honor  of  the  entire  order.  For,  after  all,  it  is 
.a  Bishop,  and  no  one  but  a  Bishop,  who  is  in- 
vested, with  an  attribute,  so  divinely  sublime, 
and  shared  by  no  mortal.  The  Episcopal  dig- 
nity is  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  for  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  who  is  not  consecrated  by  a  distinct 
Order,  when  decked  with  the  tiara,  but,  on  being 
legitimately  elected,  and  consecrated  Bishop  of 
Eome,  succeeds,  at  once,  to  all  the  powers  of 
the  head  of  the  Church  and  becomes  the  infal- 
lible judge,  in  matters  of  faith. 

For  further  illustration,  upon  this  point,  we 
refer  the  reader  to  what  we  purpose  to  say,  more 
diffusely,  in  the  Chapter  entitled  ratio  theologica, 
or  theological  consequences. 

Concerning  the  aim  of  such  a  work,  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  anticipate  an  objection,  which 
might  possibly  be  urged  by  some  very  able  the- 
ologians devoted,  heart  and  soul,  to  the  interests 
of  the  Holy  Church.  We  are  fully  aware,  that 
there  are  some,  who  scruple  to  entertain  any 
doubt  upon  the  question,  but  who,  nevertheless, 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

deem  it  ill-advised  and  unsuited  to  our  times  to 
direct  public  attention  to  claims,  calculated,  as 
tliey  fancy,  to  alienate  those  not  yet  received  into 
the  household  of  the  laith.  While  appreciating 
the  motives,  by  which  these  zealous  laborers  in 
the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  are  actuated,  we  beg 
leave  to  dissent  from  their  views,  and  respectftilly 
invite  attention  to  our  reasons.  We  are  fully 
persuaded : 

That  it  is  utterly  useless,  at  this  late  day,  and 
especially  among  our  enlightened,  free-minded 
and  good-hearted  countrymen,  to  dissemble  our 
personal  convictions.  The  armies  of  Truth  and 
Error  are  drawn  up  in  the  sight  of  the  whole 
world,  and  prepared  to  meet,  in  a  decisive  combat, 
for  the  very  life  of  Christianity.  It  is  time  to 
define  our  position  more  accurately,  and  to  let 
our  enemies  feel  our  strength  and  the  utter  im- 
possibility of  engaging  us  in  any  compromise. 
They  themselves  are  fully  satisfied,  that  the  ques- 
tion at  issue,  is  not  the  admission  or  the  rejection 
of  this  or  that  particular  article  of  the  Creed, 
but  the  existence  or  the  extinction  of  the  Church 
and  of  Christianity  itself.    They  know  very  well, 


12  INTRODTJCTION. 

that  all  their  schemes  must  prove  abortive,  unless 
they  succeed  in  destroying  or,  at  least,  in  weak- 
ening the  influence  of  the  Head  of  the  Church. 
Accordingly,  they  bring  all  their  engines  of  attack 
to  play  against  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff, with  the  view  of  effecting  a  breach  in  this 
bulwark  of  Catholic  Unity. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  the  urgent 
duty  of  all  true  sons  of  the  Church,  to  strengthen, 
as  much  as  in  them  lies,  the  devotion  of  the 
faithful  toward  the  Head  of  the  Church.  The 
sympathies  of  the  Catholic  world  are  evidently 
with  our  suffering  Father.  Thence  that  solicitude 
to  protect  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter  from  the 
desecration  of  the  invader;  thence  that  generosity 
in  furnishing  pecuniary  aid ;  thence  that  ardor  for 
enlisting  among  the  indomitable  Papal  Zouaves. 

But,  if  we  manifest  so  much  earnestness,  in 
the  defense  of  his  earthly  territory,  shall  we 
make  no  efforts  to  stay  the  inroads  of  malice  on 
his  spiritual  realm?  He  may  lose  his  temporal 
possessions,  without  the  slightest  detriment  to  the 
Unity  of  the  Church,  so  long  as  his  subjects  re- 
main in  his  Communion  and  acknowledge  his 


INTRODUCriON.  13^ 

supremacy  as  the  infallible  teacher,  in  matters 
of  faith.  But  he  can  not  surrender  one  tittle 
of  his  spiritual  sovereignty,  with  which  Christ 
has  invested  him.  The  invasion  of  the  Papal 
States  ceases,  at  intervals,  but  the  attacks, 
made  on  Catholic  Unity,  are  uninterrupted. 
The  enemies  of  truth  are  never  asleep;  but,  in 
our  times  especially  strive,  with  insidious  arti- 
fice, to  undennine  the  outworks  of  the  Church, 
which  consist  in  the  ready  submission  of  hei' 
children  to  the  judgment  and  decision  of  Christ's 
Vicar,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  Pope  Pius 
IX. 

Our  Holy  Father,  alive  to  the  growing  dan- 
ger, has  more  than  once  met  it,  by  solemnly 
asserting  his  right,  as  the  divinely  commissioned 
teacher  of  mankind.  Even  in  the  first  years 
of  his  eventful  Pontificate,  he  proclaimed  the 
Dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception;  and 
recently,  again,  he  startled  an  unbelie^dng  world 
by  his  syllabus,  which  hurls  its  anathemas,  re- 
gardless of  policy,  against  all  doctrines  dangerous 
to  the  faith.  These  acts  argue  an  exercise  of 
supreme  Authority,  which  call  upon  us,  espe- 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

cially  in  tins  country,  to  clear  them  from   the 
charge  of  Papal  arrogance  and  usurpation. 

It  is  worse  than  useless,  to  disguise  our  real 
sentiments,  in  the  face  of  facts,  which   stamp 
themselves  upon  our  whole  outward  deportment, 
and  which  reveal  to  reflecting  minds  the  real 
nature  of  our  conduct.     All  see  how  we  act  and 
how  we  must  act,  if  we  wish  to  remain  in  Com- 
munion  with   Kome.      The   Pope   teaches   and 
defines,  without  previously  convoking  a  Council 
or  asking  the  formal  consent  of  anybody ;   and 
the  clergy  of  every  order,  as  well  as  laymen  of 
every  condition,  are  obliged  to  conform,  and  do 
conform,  precisely  as  Pius  IX,  in  his  capacity 
of  Head  of  the  Church,  so  teaches  and  defines. 
Such  a  submission,  without  a  belief  in  the  Papal 
prerogative  for  which  we  contend,  would  be  the 
sheerest  hypocrisy,  and  an  eternal  stigma  on  the 
sacred  character  of  the  Episcopacy.     It  would 
argue   a  cringing  acquiescence,  dictated  by  no 
interior  conviction  of  duty,  but  prompted  by  a 
sort  of  exterior  necessity  or  force.     For,  a  sin- 
cere exterior  submission  is  incompatible  with  an 
interior  dissent.    The  mere  "  obsequious  silence," 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

SO  often  affected  by  the  Jansenists,  is  an  unmis- 
takable evidence  of  insincerity,  and  can  only 
tend  to  set  up  the  hypocrites,  as  a  laughing- 
stock to  the  enemies  of  the  Church.  It  reminds 
us  of  the  ostrich,  who  hides  his  head  in  the  sand, 
as  if  thus  he  could  escape  the  eyes  of  his  pursu- 
ers, though  his  whole  body  is  visible.  Such 
conduct  betrays  a  craven  disposition,  which  is 
neither  honorable  nor  calculated  to  inspire  con- 
fidence; while,  on  the  contrary,  a  noble,  open, 
bold  bearing,  conscious  of  the  invincibility  of 
truth,  must  eventually  gain  even  upon  the  bit- 
terest antagonists  of  our  Holy  Faith. 

We  shall  therefore  state,  with  precision  of 
style  and  solidity  of  logic,  our  reasons,  fer  sub- 
mitting to  the  doctrinal  utterances  of  the  Holy 
See.  Nor  shall  we  be  deterred  from  putting  forth 
our  convictions,  in  all  their  strength,  through  a 
fear  of  giving  rise  to  misunderstanding.  Such 
an  objection,  if  it  had  any  force,  would  hold 
equally  of  many  other  tenets  of  our  Holy  Re- 
ligion. Is  there  a  single  dogma  of  Catholic 
belief,  which  has  not  been  misconstrued,  and 
assailed  with  a  volley  of  stereotyped  calumnies, 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

from  the  dawn  of  the  so-called  Reformation  up 
to  the  present  day  ? 

In  publishing  this  treatise  we  have  not  in 
mind  those  who,  like  Pilate,  ask  "what  is 
truth,''  and  then  turn  their  backs  upon  Christ; 
but,  at  the  same  time,  we  ought  to  satisfy  the 
earnest  doubts  of  such,  as  are  desirous  to  put 
their  conscience  at  ease,  upon  the  teachings  of 
Holy  Church.  Now,  of  such  men  there  is  a 
large  number  in  our  own  country.  Let  us  then 
teach  these,  why  the  Catholic  world  subscribes, 
so  readily,  to  the  utterances  of  Rome;  and  we 
may  hope  that  a  large  number  of  our  dissenting 
brethren,  convinced  of  the  solidity  of  our  re- 
ligious ^convictions,  will  soon  join  us,  and  tread, 
in  our  company  the  way  of  salvation,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  divinely-appointed  shepherd  of 
souls. 

With  respect  to  the  division  of  the  work,  we 
have  but  little  to  add,  because  we  simply  refer 
the  kind  reader  to  our  Table  of  Contents.  The 
very  nature  of  a  theological  treatise,  such  as  it 
is  our  aim  to  make  the  present,  renders  it  desira- 
ble to  set  out  with  the  arguments  from  Scripture, 


INTEODUCTION.  17 

and  then  to  pass  over  to  those  drawn  from  tradi- 
tion, arranged  in  the  order  of  their  relative  impor- 
tance and  their  chronological  succession ;  finally 
adding  the  force  of  the  so-called  ratio  theologica, 
by  studying  the  deductions,  at  which  our  own 
reason  must  arrive,  when  arguing,  with  logical 
severity,  from  what  is  otherwise  known  to  be  a 
matter  of  faith. 

As  to  quotations,  in  which  this  volume  must 
of  necessity  abound,  we  shall  always  give  the 
most  important  words  in  Latin,  with  the  view 
of  making  the  work  more  interesting  to  pro- 
fessed theologians,  and  to  other  readers  of  classic 
tastes  and  acquirements.  We  shall  also  give,  at 
least  the  substance  of  every  passage,  in  English, 
for  the  benefit  of  such,  as  are  not  familiar  with 
the  Latin  idiom. 

Readers  of  the  latter  class  will  be  pleased  to 
learn,  that  the  unity  of  the  work  suffers  nothing, 
from  the  omission  of  the  original  Latin  texts, 
because  they  are  reproduced,  either  literally  or 
substantially,  in  the  vernacular. 

jNIay  the  book,  under  the  protection  of  the 
Immaculate  Queen  of  the  Apostles,  attain  com- 
2 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

pletely  its  aim,  and  draw  nearer  around  the 
chair  of  St.  Peter  all  those,  who  are  partakers 
of  the  Holy  Ministry  in  the  Church  of  God. 

May  it  inspire  every  Catholic  reader  with 
more  filial  devotedness  toward  the  Holy  Father, 
and  strengthen  his  religious  convictions;  and 
may  it  also  command  respect  of  the  outsiders, 
by  showing  that  even  those  articles,  which  Cath- 
olics believe,  and  which  are  especially  looked 
upon  as  superstitions  and  results  of  the  dark 
ages,  victoriously  stand  the  light  of  the  most 
severe  criticisms  of  faith  and  reason. 


THE  AUTHOR. 

CiKCiimATi,  Feast  of  St.  Peter,  1868. 


I. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

CONCERNING  THE  PRIMACY  OF  ST.  PETER,  AS  INVESTED   WITH 
INFALLIBLE  ACTaOKITY   IN   MATTERS  OF  FAITH. 


If  the  authority  and  power  of  teaching  the 
faithful  with  infallibility  the  way  of  salvation 
was  divinely  conferred  on  St.  Peter  and  liis 
successors  in  office,  we  naturally  look  for  strik- 
ing incontrovertible  evidences  to  that  effect,  in 
those  passages  of  Holy  AVrit,  which  record  the 
institution  of  the  Primacy. 

But,  before  citing  either  the  words  of  Holy 
Writ  or  those  of  the  Fathers,  we  ought  to  re- 
mind our  readers,  that  it  is  not  our  object  to 
prove  the  Primacy  in  general,  but  in  as  far  as 
it  brings  with  it,  when  united  to  the  teaching 
authority,  the  inherent  prerogative  of  Infalli- 
bility in  matters  of  faith.     We  deem  this  obser- 

(19) 


20  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTUEE. 

vation  of  importance,  in  order  to  guard  against 
tlie  supposition  that  we  force  our  conclusions. 

The  first  words,  which  attract  our  notice,  are 
those  addressed  to  St.  Peter,  after  he  had  sol- 
emnly declared  his  belief  in  the  Divinity  of 
Christ:  ^^ Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jona: 
because  flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  to 
thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I 
say  to  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church ;  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven : 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it 
shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven:  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed 
also  in  heaven."  * 

It  is  evident  from  this  passage,  that  Christ 
invested  Peter  as  the  Head  of  the  Church  with 
infallible  authority  in  questions  of  faith;  for 
their  obvious  import  certainly  is,  that  Peter 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  Church, 
whose  life  is  faith,  that  the  foundation  does  to 
the  entire  building.  Now,  if  the  foundation 
gives  way,  the  whole  superstructure  must  soon 
crumble  into  ruins. 

All  the  Fathers  understand  these  words  in  the 

*  Matth.  xvi :  17. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCEimjRE.  21 

same  manner,  and  look  upon  the  immovable  faith 
of  Peter  as  the  roek  meant  by  Christ.  St.  CVril 
of  Alexandria,  expounding  this  passage,  declares: 
"To  my  mind  it  appears  evident  that  the  rock, 
here  intended  by  Christ,  is  nothing  else  than  the 
disciple's  unshaken  faith,  on  which  the  Church 
was  built,  that  it  might  not  be  in  danger  of  fall- 
ing or  of  surrendering  to  the  powers  of  darkness.'* 
^^Fetrum  opinov  nihil  aliud,  quam  inconcussam  et 
firmissimam  discipuli  fidem  vocavity  in  qua  Eccle- 
sia  fundata  estj  ut  non  laberetur  et  esset  inexpug- 
nabilis  inferorum  portis.''^ 

St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  avers:  "Peter  is 
called  a  rock,  and  the  foundations  of  the  Church 
are  planted  in  his  faith."  f 

St.  Ambrose  reasons  as  follows:  "Faith  is 
the  groundwork  of  the  Church,  because  of  the 
faith,  and  not  of  the  person  of  Peter,  it  was  said, 
that  the  gates  of  death  should  never  prevail 
against  it."  J 

St.  Axjgustin  remarks :  "  He  (Christ)  called 
him  Peter,  that  is,  the  rock,  and  praised  the 
foundations  of  the  Church  which  was  built  on 
the  Apostle's  faith.  "  Xorninavit  Petrumj  et  lau- 
davit  firmamentum  Ecclesice  in  ista  fideJ^  § 


*  Lib.  iv  de  Trinit.  f  Or.  de  moder.  ferv.  in  disp. 

X  Do  Incarn.  C.  v,  No.  34.   g  Tract  ii.  in  Joan,  No.  20. 


22  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

St.  Epiphanius  says :  "  Peter  was  made  for 
us  a  living  rock,  on  which,  as  on  a  foundation, 
the  faith  of  the  Lord  rests,  and  on  which  the 
Church  is  erected."  ^'Qui  quidem  solidcB  Petrce 
instar  nobis  exstitit,  cui  velut  fundamento  Domini 
fides  innititur,  supra  qiiam  Ecclesia  modis  omnibus 
cedificata  esV^^ 

The  same  idea  is  forcibly  reechoed  in  the 
words  of  St.  Chrysostom,  who  remarks :  "  He 
(Christ)  did  not  say  Petrus,  but  Petra,  because 
He  did  not  build  His  Church  upon  the  man,  but 
upon  the  faith  of  Peter."  "iYon  dixit  supra  Pet- 
rum;  neque  enim  supra  hominem,  sed  supra  fidem 
ejus,  scilicet  Petri  cedificavitJ^  f 

St.  Leo  the  Great,  sustains  precisely  the  same 
views:  "Peter,"  suggests  he,  "so  pleased  the 
Lord  by  the  sublimity  of  his  faith,  that,  after 
being  admitted  to  the  fruition  of  bliss,  he  re- 
ceived the  solidity  of  an  immovable  rock,  on 
which  the  Church  was  so  firmly  built,  as  to  bid 
defiance  to  the  gates  of  hell  and  the  laws  of 
death."  "  Tantum  in  hac  fidei  sublimitate  sibi 
complacuitj  ut,  beatitudinis  felicitate  donatus,  sa~ 
cram  immobilis  Petrce  susciperet  firmitatem,  sitpra 
quam  fundata  Ecclesia  pjoriis  inferi  et  mortis  legi- 
bus  praevaleretJ^  X 

*  Haeres.  59.  No.  7. 1 1.  Sermon.  Pentecost.  X  Serm.  51.  al.  94,  c.  1. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  23 

C^SARius,  the  Cistercian,  appositely  thus 
paraplirases  the  same  passage :  '^  On  this  rock, 
namely,  on  the  unshaken  faith,  to  which  thou 
owest  thy  name,  I  ^vill  build  my  Church/'  ^ 

Now,  if  this  reasoning  holds  of  Peter,  it  holds 
with  equal  propriety  of  his  successors.  For, 
according  to  the  reasoning  of  all  the  Fathers, 
the  privileges  which  were  conferred  on  St. 
Peter  for  the  direction  of  the  fliithful,  are  the 
inalienable  prerogative  of  the  Holy  See,  because 
the  authority  vested  in  the  Head  of  the  Church 
was  to  subsist  through  all  ages,  even  unto  the 
consummation  of  time.  Certainly  Christ  did  not 
build  His  Church  upon  Pet^r,  for  the  good  of 
Peter,  but  for  the  welfare  of  mankind. 

Pope  Leo,  therefore,  contended  for  an  ac- 
knowledged prerogative,  when  he  so  emphatic- 
ally asserted :  "  The  order  of  truth  remains 
unaltered,  and  Peter,  preserving  the  firmness 
of  a  rock,  has  not  abandoned  the  helm  of  the 
Church.  His  power  is  perpetuated  in  his  See, 
and  his  authority  still  challenges  obedience. 
In  my  lowliness,  then,  you  ought  to  recognize 
him,  whose  authority  is  not  impaired,  though 
transmitted  to  an  unworthy  heir."  ^' Manet  clispo- 
sitio  veritatk,  et  B.  Fetrus,  in  accepta  fortitudine 

*Hoin.  de  Cath.  S.  Petri. 


24  TESTIMONY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

petrce perseverans,  Ecdesice  gubernacula  non  relin- 
quit — ciijus  in  sua  sede  vivit  potestas  et  exeellit 
audoritas.  In  persona  itaque  humilitatis  meoe  ille 
horwretur,  cujus  dignitas  etiam  in  indigno  hwrede 
non  deficit.^' 

Hundreds  of  Fathers  have  supported  the  same 
doctrine,  in  the  Oecumenical  Councils,  and  have 
solemnly  declared  that  Peter  abides  in  the  person 
of  his  successor.  "Through  Leo,  Peter  has 
spoken,"  exclaimed  the  Fathers  of  the  Fourth 
General  Council.  Those  of  the  Sixth  General 
Council  expressed  the  same  conviction,  couched 
in  the  following  unequivocal  terms :  "  It  appeared 
to  us  paper  and  ink ;  but  through  Agatho  Peter 
has  spoken.  Therefore,  we  leave  it  to  thee  to 
decide  what  is  to  be  done,  because  thou  standest 
upon  the  immovable  rock  of  faith.'^  "Charta  et 
atramentum  videbatur;  et,  per  Agathonem,  Petrus 
loquebatur.  Tibi,  itaque,  quidquid  gerendum  sit 
relinquimus,  stanti  super  jirmam  jidei  j)etram." 

Supported  by  the  voice  of  tradition  and  the 
teachings  of  the  Fathers,  St.  Anselm,  who  had 
taken  up  the  gauntlet  against  the  antipope, 
Guibert,  furthermore  invokes  the  evidence  of 
historical  facts :  "  Whilst  even  Patriarchs  have 
erred  and  apostatized  from  the  faith,  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  though  attacked  and  assaulted,  has  stood 
unmoved  in  his  stronghold,  because  heaven  and 


TESTIMONY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  25 

earth  shall  pass  away,  but  not  the  words  of  Him 
who  said  :  '  Thou  art  Peter;  that  is  the  rock, and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church/  ''—"In 
ejmdem  fidei  fundam€7ito,  lied  pulsatm,  licet  con- 
cussm,  tamen  stetit  inwiobilis,  Coclum  enim  d 
tet^ra  tramibunt,  verba  autem  ipsius  non  transi- 
bunt,  qui  dixit:  *Tu  es  Pdrus,  dc.' '' * 

It  is  of  no  little  interest  to  listen  to  the  train 
of  reasoning  suggested,  by  the  above  text,  even 
to  a  Bossuet     In  a  discourse  addressed  to  the 
French    Bisho])s,    assembled    in    Council,    the 
eloquent  orator  speaks  thus:  "This  noble  con- 
fession   merited   fur  Peter   the   honor  of  being 
selected  as  the  foundation  stone  of  the  Church. 
But  the  power,  conferred  by  this  choice  upon  a 
mortal  man,  can  not  be  supposed  to  have  ceased 
with  Peter,  because  the  foundation  of  a  building, 
designed   to   last  forever,  can  not  be  subject  to 
the  ravages  of  time.    Therefore  Peter  will  always 
live   in  his  successors,  always   speak  from  his 
chair.    Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Fathers, 
such   the  declaration   of  the   six   hundred  and 
thirty   Bishops,   assembled   in    the    Council    of 
Chalcedon.    St.  Paul,  who  had  been  rapt  up  into 
the  third  Heaven,  bowed  to  the  decisions  of  Peter, 
to  give  an  example  to  after  ages.     A  like  dispo- 

*Lib.  oont.  Pseud,  Pont,  Guib. 


26  TESTIMONY   OF   HOLY   SCEIPTURE. 

sition^  to  abide  by  the  infollible  oracles  of  the 
Holy  See,  must  ever  distinguish  the  faithful  sons 
of  the  Church.  Every  one,  no  matter  how  learned 
or  how  holy,  even  though  he  were  another  Paul — 
^  etiamsi  alter  Paulus  quis  videretur^ — owes  un- 
feigned allegiance  to  Peter.  The  Church  of 
Eome,  taught  by  Peter  and  his  successors,  never 
saw  errors  spring  up  in  her  bosom.  She  has 
always  preserved  her  virginity;  and  therefore 
her  faith  of  Christianity,  and  Peter  still  con- 
tinues to  be,  in  his  successors,  the  foundation 
of  the  Church.  Such  has  ever  been  the  verdict 
of  the  General  Councils  of  Africa,  of  Greece, 
of  France,  of  the  whole  Church  'from  the 
rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going  down  of  the 
same.' "  * 

Another  decisive  declamtion  of  Christ,  in  sup- 
port of  this  Papal  prerogative,  we  find  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  Chapt.  22d :  "Simon, 
Simon,  behold  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  thee, 
that  he  may  sift  thee  as  wheat.  But  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not:  and  thou 
being  once  converted,  confirm  thy  brethren — 
Bogavi  pro  te,  ut  fides  tua  non  deficiat,  et  tii 
aliquando  conversus,  confirma  fratres  tuosJ^  f 
After  this  sacred  assurance  and  solemn  injunc- 

*Sennon  sur  rUnit^.     fl^i^k^  xxii:  31,  32. 


TESTIMONY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE.  27 

tion  nobody,  who  believes  in  Christ,  will  question 
tlie  Infallibility  of  Peter.     Now,  if,  even  in  the 
primitive  days  of  Christianity,  the  doctrinal  In- 
fiillibility  of  the  head  of  the  Church  was,  in  a 
ccrttiin  sense,  nccessaiy  for  the  Church,  how  much 
more  necessary  must  it  not  be,  in  after  ages?    If, 
when  Tradition  was  still  recent  and  the  Apostles 
were    still    alive,    Christ   wished   some    one    to 
strengthen  His  followers,  in  tlie   faith,  can  we 
reasonably  suppose  that,  after  the  lapse  of  cen- 
turies, when  the  Church  is  obliged  to  maintain 
so  fearful  a  combat  against  error.  He  would  not 
provide  His  Church  with  an  inflUlible  doctrinal 
tribunal?     In  matters  of  faith,  which  excludes 
even  the  possibility  of  error,  nothing  less  than 
an  infallible  authority  can  sufficiently  strengthen 
the  believer  against  the  many  assaults,  to  which 
he  is  exposed.     Every  Pope  may  therefore  say, 
with  Innocent  III :  ''  Were  I  not  strong  in  the 
faith,  how  could  I  confirm  others  in  the  faith  ? 
Yet  tiiis  belongs  to  my  office,  as  is  evident  from 
the  words  of  Christ:  'I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
tliat  thy  faith  fail  not :  and  thou  being  once  con- 
verted, confirm  thy  brethren.'  "  * 

"iVTsi  ego  solidatus  essem  in  fide,  quomodo  altos 
posseni  in  fide  firmare,    quod    ad   officium  meum 


*Inn.  serm.  ii,do  Cons.  Pout. 


28  TESTIMONY   OF   HOLY   SCEIPTTJRE. 

noscitiir   specialiter  pertinerej  protestante  Domino : 
Ego  rogavi  pro  teJ' 

Bossuet  again  expresses  himself  as  follows,  in  his 
Meditations  on  the  Gospels:  ^^The  mission  of 
confirming  the  faithful  was  not  given  to  Peter 
only,  but  was  attached  to  his  office,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  intention  of  Christ,  was  to  last 
forever.  Peter  must  always  abide  in  his  Church, 
in  order  to  *  confirm  his  brethren ' — Semper  in 
Ecclesia  Petrus  debuit  existere^  qui  fratres  con- 
firmarety  Even  in  his  Defense,  we  read  :  *^  It 
is  in  virtue  of  their  office,  that  Peter  and, 
through  him,  his  successors  have  received  the 
command  of  confirming  their  brethren — Hog 
ergo  ex  officio  Petrus  habet,  hoc  Petri  successores 
in  Petro  acceperunt^  ut  fratres  conjirmare  jubean- 

*^  Christ  prayed  for  Peter,^^  remarks  the  same 
author,  "not  because  he  was  less  solicitous  for 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  but  because,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Holy  Fathers,  He,  by  strengthening 
the  head,  wished  to  prevent  the  members  from 
staggering."  f 

"The  Church,"  writes  St.  Francis  de  Sales, 
"  is  always  in  need  of  an  unerring  strengthener, 
to  whom  we  may  address  ourselves ;  of  a  founda- 

*  Lib.  X;  Def.  c.  3.     f  Med.  70  and  72  day. 


TESTmOXY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTrHE.  29 

tion,  which  the  powers  of  hell,  and  particularly 
those  of  error,  can  not  overthrow;  of  a  shepherd, 
who  can  not  lead  her  children  astray.  The  Holy 
Father  is  therefore  invested  with  the  preroga- 
tives of  St.  Peter,  which  are  not  attached  to  his 
person,  but  to  the  office.^'  L^cglise  a  tmijours 
besoin  d^un  confirmateur  mfallible,  au  quel  on 
jmisse  «'  addresser,  d'un  fondement  que  les  portes 
d'enfer  et  principalment  d'erreur  ne  puissent  ren- 
verser,  et  que  son  pasteur  ne  puisse  conduire  a 
rerretir  ces  enfans.  Les  successmrs  done  de  St. 
Pierre  out  tons  les  mhnes  privileges,  qui  ne  sui~ 
vent  pas  la  personne,  nmis  la  dignite  et  la  charge 
puhlique.^^ 

And  again,  when  he  compared  the  Popes  with 
the  High  Priests  of  the  Old  Covenant,  he  re- 
marks that  the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter,  bear 
on  their  breasts  the  sacred  Urim  and  Thumim; 
that  is,  Doctrine  and  Truth.  The  saint  assigns  as 
a  reason,  that  no  right  was  given  to  Agar,  the 
handmaid,  which  was  not  conferred,  in  a  still 
more  eminent  degree,  on  Sarah,  the  wife. 

After  the  Resurrection,  Christ,  having  heard 
Peter's  triple  protestation  of  love,  formally  in- 
stalled him  as  head  of  the  Church,  saying  to 
him:      "Feed    my    lambs,    feed    my    sheep."* 

♦John  XXI,  15,  16,  17. 


80  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTTJIIE. 

Now,  as  the  food  here  meant  is  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  and  sanctification,  and  as  Christ  could 
never  expose  His  whole  flock  to  the  inevitable 
danger  of  being  led  to  noxious  and  fatal  pas- 
tures, by  those  whom  he  had  set  over  them  as 
the  supreme  shepherd,  we  are  warranted  in  the 
inference  that  as  vicars  of  Christ,  Peter  and  his 
successors  can  not  fall  into  any  doctrinal  error. 
"  From  the  shepherd  I  expect  protection  for  the 
flock/'  writes  St.  Jerome  to  Pope  Damasus. 
Nothing,  indeed,  is  more  natural  or  proper. 
Kemark,  moreover,  that,  according  to  the  mani- 
fest declaration  of  Christ,  this  flock  comprises 
not  only  the  lambs,  but  also  the  sheep.  Hence 
all  the  Fathers  concur,  with  the  great  St.  Eu- 
charius,  in  interpreting  the  above  text  to  mean, 
that  not  only  the  common  faithful,  but  also  their 
pastors,  are  bound  to  listen  to  their  chief  Pastor, 
the  successor  of  Peter,  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  "  He 
has  made  Peter  not  merely  an  ordinary  shep- 
herd, but  the  shepherd  of  shepherds.''  ^^  Sed  et 
pastormn  ipswn  constituit  pastorem.^'  * 

Therefore,  as,  according  to  the  first  text,  no- 
body can  be  a  member  of  the  true  Church,  unless 
he  yields  obedience  to  the  teachings  of  St.  Peter, 
who  speaks  by  the  mouth  of  the  Sovereign  Pon- 

*Hom.  in  vig.  Sti.  Petri. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTUIIE.  31 

tiff,  SO,  according  to  the  present  text,  nobody  can 
belong  to  the  flock  of  Clirist,  unless  he  is  nour- 
ished, with  the  food  of  doctrine,  by  the  chief 
shepherd,  who  can  always  distinguish  the  sweet 
and  wholesome  pasture  of  liiith  from  the  rank 
and  poisonous  weeds  of  error. 

These  are  consequences,  at  which  the  thinking 
mind  readily  arrives,  without  at  all  straining 
the  words  of  Christ,  into  an  unnatural  meanino-. 
Indeed  they  flow  so  necessai'ily  from  universally 
admitted  principles,  that  they  appear  more  like 
self-evident  truths,  tlian  like  de^luctions,  seen  by 
the  reflected  light  of  logical  sequence. 

Yet,  the  strength  of  this  scriptural  argument 
is  greatly  augmented  and  wonderfully  ilhistrated 
by  the  testimony  of  Tradition,  transmitted  to 
us,  without  interruption,  by  the  writings  of  the 
Holy  Fathers,  to  which  we  shall  now  appeal. 


n. 
TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS 

FEOM  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ERA,  UNTIL  THE 
DAYS  OF  ST.  BERNARD,  PROCLAIMING  THE  SEE  OF  ST.  PETER 
AT  ROME  TO  BE  THE  HIGHEST  TRIBUNAL  IN  MATTERS  OP 
FAITH. 


It  is  not  a  little  gratifying,  to  meet  even  in 
the  Apostolic  age,  with  evidences  in  proof  of  the 
Supreme  Authority  exercised  in  matters  of  faith, 
by  the  successors  of  St.  Peter. 

Hermas,  a  disciple  of  St.  PauPs,  mentioned  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Chap,  xvi,  wrote  a 
book  entitled  "Pastor,"  which  seems  to  have 
been  held  in  great  esteem,  by  contemporaries. 
The  author  himself  tells  us,  that  he  w^as  ordered 
to  send  his  work  to  Clement,  at  Rome,  that  the 
Vicar  of  Christ,  to  whom  it  belonged  to  decide 
all  questions  bearing  upon  the  dogmas  of  faitli, 

(S2) 


TESTIMONY   OP  THE   HOLY    FATHEES.      33 

might  circulate  the  treatise  among  the  other 
Churches,  should  he  think  it  for  the  interest  of 
religion.  Now,  at  the  time  of  Hermas,  St.  John 
the  Evangelist  was  still  alive.  Yet,  the  writer 
was  not  called  upon  to  submit  his  work  to  the 
aged  Apostle,  but  to  Clement,  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter.  What  a  striking  example  of  the  Su- 
preme authority,  in  matters  of  faith,  exercised 
by  the  Roman  Pontiff.  We  can  not  but  hail, 
exultingly,  the  entire  conformity,  in  point  of 
doctrine  and  practice,  between  the  first  days  of 
the  Christian  era  and  our  own  times. 

St.  Ignatius,  likewise  a  Bishop  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  and  a  disciple  of  St.  John's,  states,  in 
his  letter  to  the  Romans,  that  the  doctrinal  de- 
cisions of  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  are  authori- 
tative. "  Quce  docendo prcecipitisJ^  But  he,  that, 
by  merely  teaching  a  certain  doctrine,  can  lay 
another  under  the  obligation  of  teaching  the 
same,  mist  evidently  possess  supreme  judiciary 
power  to  decide  between  right  and  wrong,  true  or 
false.  This  authority  of  the  Roman  See,  recog- 
nized at  so  early  a  date,  has  plainly  no  other 
origin  or  warrant  than  the  divine  institution  of 
the  Primacy,  as  invested  with  that  privilege. 

St.  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  Ignatius, 
purposely  went  to  Rome  to  learn  from  Pope 
St.  Victor,  what  rule  he  was  to  follow  in  fixing 


34      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

the  time  for  the  celebration  of  Easter.  Such  a 
journey,  undertaken  by  one  of  the  oldest  Bishops 
of  the  Church,  evinces  his  solicitude  to  draw  the 
waters  of  truth  from  their  fountain  source. 
\Yere  there  not  other  Apostolic  Sees  much  nearer 
than  that  of  Rome?  Aye,  did  not  the  beloved 
disciple,  St.  John,  still  govern  the  Church  .  of 
Ephesus?  Yet  men,  taught  by  the  Apostles 
themselves  the  wisdom  of  faith,  bend  their  aged 
steps  toward  the  Eternal  City,  in  order  to  assure 
themselves  of  the  faith  and  discipline  of  the 
first  among  the  Churches. 

St.  Iren^us,  the  disciple  of  St.  Polycarp, 
writes  upon  this  subject:  "All  the  Churches 
must  depend  on  the  Church  of  Rome  as  on  their 
source  and  head."  ''Omnes  a  Romana  Ecclesia 
necesse  est  pendeant,  tamquam  a  fonte  et  capite."  * 
The  reason,  which  he  assigns,  is  the  preeminent 
superiority — the  ''potior  py'incijmlitas^' — of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  This  precedence  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters,  acknowledged  at  so  early  a  date, 
can  be  ascribed  to  nothing  but  the  supremacy 
of  St.  Peter,  who  fixed  his  residence  at  Rome, 
and,  by  his  prerogative  of  Infallibility,  made  it 
the  incorruptible  channel  of  Apostolic  tradition. 
"Ad  hane  enini  Ecelesiam  necesse  est  omnem  con- 
venire  Ecclesianiy  in  qua  semper  ah  his,  qui  sunt 

*  Iren.  lib,  3,    adv.   haeres. 


TECTniONY   OF  THE    HOLY   FATHERS.      35 

undique  jideles,  conservata  est  ea,  quce  ah  Apos- 
tolis  est  J  trad  it  io.'^  "  If  we  remain  firm  in  our 
allegiance,  to  the  See  of  Peter/'  proceeds  the 
Saint,  ^*  we  shall  easily  disconcert  the  malice  of 
those,  who,  either  through  conceitedness  or  bad 
faith,  broach  new-fangled  theories,  at  variance 
with  sound  doctrine/'  ^^  Confundimus  rnnnes  eos, 
qui  sibi  placentia,  vel  per  vanam  gloriam  vel  per 
ccEcitatan  et  malam  setitentiam,  prceterquam  oportct 
colUgunV^  *  The  words  of  this  venerable  Father 
of  the  primitive  Church  are  decisive.  Even  the 
fastidious  Quesuel  bowed  his  head  before  the  au- 
thority of  tlffe  great  Father,  who,  passing  from' 
the  East  to  the  Vs^Qst,  was  a  living  witness  to  the 
faith  of  the  Greek  as  well  as  of  the  Latin  Church. 
Tertullian,  who,  like  Irenaeus,  belongs  to 
the  second  century,  styles  the.  Church  of  Rome 
a  blessed  Church,  in  which  the  Princes  of  the 
Apostles  sealed  the  faith  with  their  blood,  and  from 
which  all  authority  emanates — ^^unde  nobis  quoque 
aucforitas  prcesto  est.  De prceser.  c.  21J^  That  this 
authority  referred,  in  a  special  manner,  to  matters 
of  doctrine,  and  served  as  a  rule  of  faith  to  all  the 
Christians  of  his  time,  we  may  gather  from  the 
following  declaration  of  the  same  Father ;  ^'  I 
learn,"  says  he,  '^  that  a  very  peremptoiy  decree 
has  been    issued.     The   Sovereign  Pontiff,   the 

*  Iren.  1.  5.  adv.  hseres. 


36      TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

Bishop  of  Bishops,  declares,  ^ Audio  edidum 
fuisse  publicatum,  et  quidem  peremptorium  Sum- 
mm  Pontifexj  Episcopus  Episcoporum  dicit:^'^^ 

In  this  connection,  we  can  not  but  refer  to  the 
illustrious  Confession  of  St.  Hypolitus,  whose 
history  is  thus  briefly  summed  up  in  the  Roman 
Martyrology  :  "  At  Antioch,  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Hyj^olitus,  a  priest,  who  offered  his  neck  to 
the  executioner,  with  the  words,  '  We  are  bound 
to  profess  that  faith,  which  is  preserved  in  its 
purity  by  the  See  of  Peter ' — '  earn  fidem  dicens 
esse  servandam,  quam  Petri  Cathedra  custodiret.^  ^' 

Oeigen,  who  flourished  about  {^e  same  time 
(t  253),  adds  the  tribute  of  his  mighty  genius  to 
that  of  the  other  early  writers.  ^'  Consider,''  re- 
marks he, "  what  must  be  the  power  and  authority 
of  Peter,  the  living  rocky  upon  which  the  Church 
was  built,  and  whose  decisions  have  as  much 
force  and  validity  as  oracles  emanating  from  the 
mouth  of  Christ  Himself.  "  Ut  ejus  judicia  ma- 
neantjirma,  quasi  Deo  Judicante  per  eam.^'f 

St.  Cyprian  (f  258)  writes  to  his  friend,  Pope 
Cornelius :  "  All  heresies  and  schisms  have  sprung 
from  a  disregard  for  the  one  Priest  and  Judge, 
to  whom  Christ  has  delegated  His  power.  For 
if,  in  compliance  with  the  intentions  of  our 
Lord,  every  member  of  the  Christian  Community 

*  Lib.  de  Pudic.  t  Oiig-  Caten. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.      37 

yielded  a  docile  obedience  to  the  representative 
of  God,  the  unity  of  the  Church  would  never  be 
rent."  "iS'ec  unus  in  Ecdesia  ad  tempus  saeerdos, 
et  ad  tenipihs  judex  vice  Christi  cogitatur,  cui  si 
secundum  magisteria  dhina  ohUmperaret  fraier- 
nitas  universa,  nemo  Ecclesiam  scinderet."  * 

The  same  author  indignantly  exclaims:  "They 
dare  approach  the  chair  of  Peter,  without  re- 
flecting that  to  the  Romans  no  error  can  have 
access."  ^'Ad  Petri  cathedram  navigare  auderitj 
non  cogitantes  eos  esse  RomanoSj  ad  quos  perfidia 
own  possit  habere  accessum.'' f  "One  God,"  he 
exclaims,  "  one  Christ  and  one  Church,  founded, 
by  the  Lord,  upon  Peter."  X 

Other  portions  of  the  Saint's  writings  are,  if 
possible,  even  more  explicit  still.  In  a  letter, 
addressed  to  a  certain  Anthony,  he  identifies  the 
Pope  with  the  whole  Church.  "  You  desire  me  to 
forward  your  epistle  to  Cornelius,  because  you 
wish  to  satisfy  His  Holiness  that  you  live  in 
communion  with  Him,  that  is,  with  the  Church." 
"Te  secum.hoc  est,  cum  Ecclesia  CathoUca  com- 
municare.'^  § 

The  same  spirit  runs  through  his  letter  of  fe- 
licitation to  Pope  Lucius,  who  had  been  delivered 
from  prison.      After  pouring  out  his   generous 

*Epist.  iv  ad.  Corn.  Pont,     t  On  Novatian  and  his  adherents. 
X  Epist.  48  and  49.  ^  Epist.  43. 


38      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

soul  in  words  of  congratulation,  lie  gives  it  as 
his  conviction  that  Almighty  God  specially  in- 
terposed in  favor  of  the  Pontiff,  to  show  heretics, 
which  is  the  true  Church  and  who  is  the  one  de- 
signed by  Heaven  as  the  chief  Pastor  of  souls. 

St.  Athanasius  (f  373)  writes  to  Pope  Felix 
II:  "You  are  the  destroyer  of  the  heresies, 
which  devastate  the  Church ;  you  are  the  teacher 
and  guardian  of  sound  doctrine  and  unerring 
faith."  '^ Tu  j^rofanarum  hceresujn  depositor,  doc- 
tor et  princeps  orthodoxce  doctrinoe  et  immaculatce 
Jidel  existis.^^ 

The  Fathers  assembled  in  the  Synod  of  Alex- 
andria remind  the  same  Pope  that  the  Church, 
which  they  represent,  has  always  solicited  and 
obtained  assistance  from  the  Holy  See,  because 
the  chair  of  Peter  was  established  on  an  im- 
movable foundation,  and  designed,  by  Christ, 
to  serve  as  a  model  for  all  other  Churches,  and 
as  a  pivot,  upon  which  they  rest  and  turn. 
"  Ipsa  enim  firmamentum  a  Deo  fixum  et  immo- 
bile percepitj  quoniam  ipsam  formam  universoimm 
lucidissimam  Dominus  Jesus  Christus  vestram 
Apostolicam  constituit  sedem.  Ipsa  enim  sacer 
verteXj  in  quo  omnes  Ecclesice  vertuntur,  susten- 
tantur,  relevanturJ^  * 

*Epist.  Syn.  Alex,  ad  Felicemll. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS.        3^ 

In  a  work,  which  owes  its  authorship  to  ]Moeh- 
ler,  and  bears  the  title  ^'Aihcuiasim  the  Great, 
and  the  Church  of  his  time"  we  find  the  follow- 
ing |x?rtinent  reflection :  "As  the  Pope  succeeds 
to  the  authority  of  Peter,  and  thus  becomes  the 
head,  with  which  all  the  members  form  an  or- 
ganic whole,  the  several  Churches  should  be 
guided,  in  matters  of  faith,  by  his  controlling 
care.  AVhen  the  Arian  heresy  devastated  the 
fairest  fields  of  the  Church,  and,  with  the  ma- 
lignity inspired  by  hatred,  aimeil  its  missiles,  in 
a  special  manner,  against  Athanasius,  all  the 
Catholics,  no  less  than  this  noble  champion  of 
the  truth,  instinctively  looked  toward  the  Holy 
See  for  support.  Thence  resulted  a  marvelous 
union  of  forces.  Those  who  advocated  the  di- 
vinity of  the  invisible  head,  api)ealed  to  the 
visible  head,  and,  when  assured  of  his  favor  and 
countenance,  they  cheerfully  returned  to  their 
homes  to  offer  the  remainder  of  their  lives  as 
a  holocaust  on  the  altar  of  the  faith.  Thus  the 
history  of  Athanasius  is  like  an  epitome  of  the 
history  of  the  Primacy,  at  that  epoch.  The 
record  of  his  fortunes  and  his  devotion  is  not 
a  mere  episode,  a  bare  recital  of  isolated  facts, 
but  an  abridgment  of  the  most  momentous 
events,  which  'are  felt,  in  their  effects,  by  the 
remotest  posterity." 


40        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS. 

The  thought  so  happily  expressed  by  this 
learned  author,  is  well  exemplified  in  our  own 
times,  when  again  the  eyes  of  all  Catholics  in- 
stinctively look  upon  Pius  IX,  who,  by  his 
energy,  is  daily  strengthening  the  bonds  of 
Catholic  unity. 

In  a  letter  of  St.  Basils's  (t378),  forwarded 
by  the  Deacon  Sabinus  to  Pope  St.  Damasus,  we 
read  the  following :  "  To  your  Holiness  it  is  given 
to  distinguish  the  adulterated  and  spurious  from 
the  pure  and  orthodox,  and  to  teach,  without 
alteration,  the  faith  of  our  forefathers."  The 
holy  Doctor  then  subjoins:  "  We  pray  and  con- 
jure your  Holiness  to  send  letters  and  legates  to 
your  children  in  the  Orient,  that  we  may  be  con- 
firmed in  the  faith,  if  we  have  followed  the  path 
of  truth,  or  be  reproved,  if  we  have  gone  astray. 
There  is  no  one  but  your  Holiness,  to  whom  we 
can  turn  for  help,"  ^'Fietati  tuce  donatum  est 
a  Domino  J  scilicet  ut,  quod  adulterinum  est,  a 
legiiimo  et  puro  discernas  et  fidem  patrura  sine 
ulla  subtractione  prcedices.^ 

Optatus,  the  learned  and  well-known  Bishop 
of  Melevi  (fSOO),  is  the  author  of  a  book,  entitled 
^'  Contra  Parinenianum/^  in  which  he  invokes, 
against  some  erratic  spirits  of  his  day,  the  au- 

*  Ep  :  71,  74,  77. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS.        41 

thority  of  the  Roman  See,  estoblished  by  St. 
Peter.  "Thou  knowe.st,"  remarks  he,  "and 
thou  darest  not  deny,  that  at  Rome,  Peter  es- 
tablished the  Episcopal  Chair,  which  he  was  the 
first  to  occupy,  thus  securing  to  all  the  blessings 
of  perfect  unity."  "In  qua  una  Cathedra  Uni- 
tas  ab  omnibus  servareturJ^  * 

The  Donatists  tlieraselves,  conscious  of  the 
prevailing  belief,  which  regarded  Rome  as  the 
inflillible  teacher  of  Christian  nations,  seeking  to 
give  to  their  errors  the  semblance  of  orthodoxy, 
maintained,  at  the  center  of  the  Christian  world, 
a  bishop  of  their  own  choosing,  to  make  the 
faithful  of  Africa  believe  that  Rome  tolemted 
their  errors,  and  remained  in  communion  with 
them. 

The  views,  entertained  by  St.  Ambrose  (f  397), 
on  the  prerogative  of  the  Roman  See,  are  mani- 
fest, as  well  from  his  verbal  declarations,  as  from 
his  personal  relations  with  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 
In  a  letter,  which  he,  in  concert  with  other  Bish- 
ops, addressed  to  Pope  SiRicius,  the  saintly 
Prelate  gives  utterance  to  the  following  senti- 
ment: "In  the  pastorals  of  your  Holiness,  we 
recognize  the  care  of  the  shepherd,  who  watches 
the  entrance  of  the  sheep-fold;  who  protects  from 

*Contr.  Parmenianum. 


42      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

harm  the  flock  intrusted  to  him  by  our  Lord; 
who,  in  fine,  deserves  to  be  followed  and  obeyed 
by  all.  As  you  well  know  the  tender  lambkins 
of  the  Lord,  you  keep  guard  against  the  wolves, 
and  like  a  vigilant  shepherd,  prevent  them  from 
dispersing  the  fold."  '^DignuSj  quern  oves  Domini 
audiant  et  sequantur;  et  ideo,  quia  nosti  oviculas 
Christij  lupos  deprehendis  et  occurris  quasi  pro- 
vidu^  pastor  J  ne  isti  moi^sihus  perjidia  sua  Jeral- 
ique  ululatu  dominicum  ovile  dispergant.''^ 

But  the  unity  of  the  fold,  here  referred  to, 
demands  above  all  unity  of  faith. 

In  compliance  with  an  ordinance  from  the 
Pope,  the  holy  Doctor  forbade  the  troublesome 
Jovinians  the  Episcopal  city  of  Milan. 

In  a  funeral  oration  on  his  brother  Satyras, 
he  eulogized  the  zeal  of  the  deceased  in  the 
cause  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  alluded,  with 
undisguised  satisfaction,  to  his  custom  of  in- 
quiring from  all,  whom  he  chanced  to  meet, 
whether  they  were  in  communion  with  the  See 
of  Peter.  If  Satyrus  discovered  that  they  had 
failed  in  this  respect,  he  rebuked  them,  because  he 
considered  that  thereby  they  had  cut  themselves 
loose  from  the  communion  of  the  whole  Church, 

In  his  forty-seventh  sermon,  the  Saint  ad- 
vanced the  principle:  "Where  Peter  is,  there 
is  the  Church."     '^Ubi  Petrus,ibi  ecdesia.'^     If 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.       43 

this  axiom  is  once  admitted,   it  is  plain   that 
Peter  and  his  successors,  when  acting  as  vicars  of 
Christ,  can  never  err  in  doctrinal  decisions.     If 
they  could,  the  Church  herself  would  be  in  error. 
But  this  supix)sition  destroys  the  very  idea  of  the 
church.     Therefore,   according  to  St.  Ambrose, 
Peter  and  his  successors  can  never  lapse  into  error. 
A  passage  in  the  eleventh  sermon  of  the  Holy 
Bishop  bears  upon  the  same  point:     "Peter  is 
the  immovable  basis,  which  supports  the  entire 
superstructure  of  Christianity."    '^Peti^^  saxnm 
immobile,  fofius  opens  C/irisficmi  compagcm  mo- 
lemque  contineV'     The  Church  of  Rome,  he  ex- 
claims, may  have  sometimes  been  tempted,  but 
it  has  never  been  altered.     '' AUquando  tmtata, 
mutata  nnnquam."  * 

St.  Epyphaxius,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  St.  Chrysostom,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth,  fully  acknowledged  this  sovereign  tribu- 
nal in  matters  of  fliith.  The  latter^s  appeal  to  the 
center  of  unity  has  been  justlv  stvled  bv  Dr.  Roth- 
ensee  the  most  forcible  and  eloquent  exposition 
which  the  golden-tongued  orator  could  have  made 
of  his  belief  in  the  apostolical  authority  of  the 
Pope  as  the  Supreme  Judge  in  the  Church. f 

*Lib.  2,  de  fide  ad  Gratianum. 

tSee  also  the  striking  declaration  of  the  same  Father  on  the 
same  subject,  Hom.  ii.  in  Act.  Ap.  Hom.  24  in  Matth.  xi, 
■Liib.  11.  de  Sac.  c.  i.  Horn,  in  Ps.  50  and  51. 


44      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

St.  Jerome  (t420)^  whom  the  Church  calls, 
in  her  liturgy  :  "  the  greatest  expounder  of  the 
Sacred  Writings/'  thus  addresses  Pope  Damasus : 
"  I  hold  fast  to  Irfie  chair  of  Peter,  upon  whom 
the  Church  is  built.  Decide  as  you  please;  if 
you  order,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  profcvSS  my 
belief  in  three  hypostases/'  ^^Beatitudini  tuoe 
i.  e.,  Cathedrae  Petri  communioni  consortior ;  su- 
pra illam  Petram  cedificatam  ecdesiam  scio.  Dis- 
cerne  si  placet ;  non  timebo  tres  hypostases  dicere^ 
si  jubebis.'^  Meanwhile  I  shall  declare  to  the 
whole  world :  '^  If  any  person  is  firm  in  his  al- 
leo^iance  to  the  chair  of  Peter,  he  is  of  my  mind: 
for  I  hold  with  the  successors  of  the  fisherman. 
He  that  does  not  gather  with  you  scatters ;  that 
is,  he  that  is  not  of  Christ  is  of  Antichrist.'' 
"  Qui  tecum  non  colUgit,  spargit ;  hoc  est,  qui  non 
est  Christi,  Antkhristi  est.'' 

In  his  treatise  against  Rufiinus,  he  bursts 
forth  into  this  brief  profession  of  faith :  "  The 
Roman  Church  can  not  countenance  error,  though 
an  angel  should  come  to  teach  it." 

St.  Augustin  (t430),  reminding  the  Dona- 
tists  of  the  unbroken  succession  of  the  Roman 
Pontiffs,  thus  addresses  them :  "  Number  all  the 
Hio'h  Priests  who  followed  one  another  in  that 
sacred  lineage ;  every  one  of  them  is  that  rock 
against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail." 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHERS.       45 

"ipsa  est  Petra  quam  non  vincunt  superbce  inferi 

He  disposes,  in  a  very  summary  manner,  of 
the  endless  quibble  of  the  Pelagians,  by  remind- 
ing them  that  two  councils  had  already  referred 
the  matter  to  Rome,  and  that  an  answer  had 
been  returned :  "  Rome  has  spoken ;  the  question 
is  settled.''    '^Boma  locuta  esty  causa  finiia  estJ'  f 

On  another  occasion  he  writes  to  the  Pela- 
gians: "By  the  briefs  of  Innocent,  all  doubt 
upon  this  subject  has  been  removed."  '^Liiterls 
Innoccntiiy  tola  hac  de  re  dubltatio  sublata  est.'^l 

In  a  treatise  against  Julian  he  says:  "Why 
do  you  call  for  an  investigation,  since  it  has 
been  already  made  by  the  See  of  Rome  ?  "  "  Quid 
qmeris  exameii,  quod  jam  apud  Apostolicam  se- 
dem  factum  est  J'  § 

In  his  157th  letter  he  remarks:  "The  Catho- 
lic faith  derives  so  much  strength  and  support 
from  the  words  of  the  Apostolic  See,  that  it  is 
criminal  to  entertain  any  doubts  concerning  it." 
"In  verbis  sedis  Apostolicce  tarn  antiqua  atque 
fwidata,  certa  et  clara  est  Catholica  fides,  ut  nefas 
sit  de  ilia  dubitareJ^ 

In  his  work  on  the  "  Unity  of  the  Church," 
he  discourses  in  eloquent  terms  on  his  relations 

*  In  Ps.  Contr.  Don.  t  In  serm.  de  verb.  Apost. 

t  Lib.  ii,  c.  3,  contr.  2,  ep.  Pel.     §  Lib.  ii,  adv.  Jul. 


46      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEKS. 

with  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  "  In  the  Catholic 
Church/^  writes  he,  "  I  attach  myself  to  the 
chair  of  Peter,  because  the  Lord  intrusted  to 
him  the  care  of  the  faithful,  and  because  his 
authority  has  descended,  through  an  uninter- 
rupted line  of  successors,  down  to  our  times. 
The  divine  Shepherd  said :  *  My  sheep  hear  my 
voice,  and  follow  me.'  This  voice  speaks  to  us, 
in  the  clearest  manner,  from  Rome.  Whosoever 
does  not  wish  to  stray  from  the  true  fold  must 
hearken  to  this  voice.''  "Fba?  ejus  de  Romana 
Ecdesia  non  est  obscura.  Quisquis  ab  ejus  grege 
errare  non  vult,  hunc  audiat,hunc  sequatur,^^  * 

Thus  spoke  Augustin,  perhaps  the  most  pro- 
found thinker  among  the  Holy  Fathers,  and  the 
best  interpreter  of  his  own  convictions. 

With  a  transcendent  genius,  which  shrunk  from 
no  scrutiny,  he  threw  light  upon  the  obscurest 
question  of  divinity,  and  unraveled  the  most 
intricate  subtilities  of  dialectics ;  yet,  when  Rome 
had  once  returned  its  infallible  verdict,  he  bowed 
to  the  oracular  -response  with  the  same  unques- 
tioning docility  with  which  the  humblest  pupil 
would  listen  to  the  explanations  of  his  tutor.  His 
testimony  alone  speaks  volumes  in  favor  of  the 
question,  which  we  have  undertaken  to  discuss. 

'^De  unit.  Eccl.,  c.  xii. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY  FATHERS.      47 

The  Holy  Doctor  had  instilled  the  same  prin- 
ciple into  his  two  distinguished  disciples,  Pros- 
per and  FuLGENTius,  of  Ruspa.  The  former 
sings  as  follows  in  his  poem,  "Z)e  ingratis : '' 

**  In  causam  fidei  flagrantius  Africa  nostroe 
Exequeris  ;   tecumque  svum  jungente  vigorem 
Juris  apoatolici  solio  /era  viscera  belli 
Conficis  et  lato  prosternis  liinite  victos 
Gemino  senum  celeherrima  coetu 
Decrevit,  qnce  Roma  prohet,  quoe  regna  sequantur." 

In  the  same  poem  occur  the  well-known  lines : 

**  Sedes  Roma  Petri,  qxice  pastoralis  honoris 
Facta  caput  mundi,  qttidquid  non  possidet  armxB 
Religione  tenet."* 

In  Prosper's  writings,  ''Contra  Collatorem," 
we  find  this  passage :  "  Pope  Zosimus  had  add- 
ed strength  to  his  decisions,  and  armed,  with 
the  sword  of  St.  Peter,  the  right  hand  of  all 
the  prelates.^'  ''Papa  Zosimus  sententia  ma  ro- 
bur  adnexit,  et  ad  impiorum  detruncationem  gladio 
Petri  dextras  omnium  armavit  antistitum.'*  Does 
not  this  sound  like  the  language  which,  at  the 
present  day,  we  would  all  hold  when  speaking 
of  Pius  IX? 

"We  trust/'  writes  our  author,  in  the  same 

*Carin.  de  ingrat. 


48        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHEES. 

work,  "that,  what  happened  in  the  case  of  In- 
nocent, Zosimus,  Boniface,  and  Celestine,  will 
again  happen  in  the  case  of  Sixtus;  and  that, 
as,  with  the  help  of  God,  they  were  able  to 
repulse  the  open  assaults  of  the  visible  wolves, 
who  leaped  upon  the  fold  in  broad  daylight,  so 
he  may  defeat  the  secret  designs  of  the  invisible 
wolf,  who  prowls  about  for  prey  under  the  cover 
of  night/^  * 

FuLGENTius,  the  other  disciple  of  the  illus- 
trious Bishop  of  Hippo,  thus  consoles  the  afflic- 
ted Church  of  Africa:  "Let  not  your  courage 
fail;  have  recourse  to  Rome,  the  mother  of  the 
true  faith.  What  Rome  believes,  all  Christianity 
believes."  f 

Quite  as  remarkable  as  the  above  is  the  tes- 
timony of  Maximian,  the  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople, whose  love  for  the  Holy  See  found  vent 
in  the  following  expression :  "  From  the  farthest 
extremity  of  the  globe,  the  confessors  of  the  true 
faith  look  up  to  the  Pope,  as  to  the  sun.  God 
has  raised  him  to  the  instructor's  chair,  with  an 
indefeasible  right  of  occupying  it  forever.  All, 
therefore,  who  would  learn  the  divine  lessons  of 
religion,  must  consult  him.''  "  Cui  cathedram 
magisteriiy  perpetuo  privilegii  jure  concessitj  ut 

*C.  i,  X,  xli.  fl^i^'  ^^  Incarn. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS.        49 

qnisquis  divinum  aliquod  sive  profundum  iiosse 
desideral,  ad  hujus  prceceptionis  oraculum  doeirin- 
anique  recurratJ^^ 

St.  Cyril  (t444),  alluding  to  his  relations 
with  Nestorius,  writes  to  Pope  Celestine:     '^We 
did  not  publicly  break  off  all  intercourse  with 
Nestorim,  before  advising  with  your  Holiness. 
We,  therefore,  conjure  you  to  acquaint  us  with 
your  desire,  that  we  may  make  it  our  rule  of 
conduct,  and  may  know,  beyond  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt,  whether  in  future,  we  are  to  hold  cor- 
respondence with  him,  or  to  dissolve,  at  once,  all 
connection.     For,  as  members   of  the  mystical 
body  of  the  Church,  it  is  incumbent  on  us  to 
follow  our  head,  the  Roman  Pontiff,  who  holds  in 
trust  the  deposit  of  Ajmstolic  faith.     From  him 
we  must  learn  what  we  are  bound  to  believe, 
think,  and  hold."     "Inde  nostrum    est    qcerere, 
quid  credoidum,  quid  opinandum,  quid  tenendum 

8it:'\ 

"  The  Bishop  of  Rome  we  shall  venerate  and 
consult,  before  all  others,  because  he  alone  is 
commissioned  to  reprimand,  to  correct,  to  ordain, 
to  dispose,  to  bind  and  to  loose,  in  place  of  Him, 
who  has  established  him  in  his  office  and  dele- 
gated to  him  alone  the  plenitude  of  authority. 

*  Ep.  ad  Orientales.         f  Hard,  viii,  1829. 

5 


60        TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS. 

All,  therefore,  do  him  homage,  and  the  prelates 
of  the  earth  obey  him,  as  Christ."  '^  Ipsius 
soliiLS  est  reprehendere,  corrigere,  statuere,  dispo- 
nere,  ligare  et  solvere  loco  illius,  qui  ipsum  cedifi- 
cavit,  et  nulli  alii  quod  suum  est  plene,  sed  ipsi 
soli  dedit;  cui  omnes,  jure  divino,  caput  inclinanty 
et  privtates  mundi  tamquam  ipsi  Jesu  Christo  obe- 
diu7it.^^  * 

St.  Peter  Chrysologus  (f  450),  writes  to  the 
heresiarch  Eutychius :  "  We  entreat  you  to  hark- 
en  especially,  to  the  decision  of  the  Pcpe  at  Rome, 
and  to  abide,  with  all.  readiness,  by  his  final  sen- 
tence; because  Peter,  who  lives  and  governs  in 
his  own  See,  returns  to  those,  who  consult  him, 
the  answer  of  truth."  "  Quoniam  B.  Petrus,  qui 
in  propria  Sede  vivit  et  prccsidet,  prcc^tat  quaeren- 
tibusfidei  veritatem.^^  f 

The  testimony  of  the  two  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rians, Socrates  and  Sozomenus,  both  Greeks, 
likewise  belongs  to  this  century  and,  for  obvious 
reasons,  claims  a  special  notice  in  our  pages. 
Socrates  affirms  that  without  the  sanction  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  ^'  nothing  of  importance  can  be 
done  in  the  Church  of  God."  J  But  nothing 
certainly  is  of  more  vital  importance  than  decis- 
ions concerning  the  dogmas  of  faith. 

"*Lib.  Thesaur.     t  ^P-  ^^  Eutych.  inter  Acta  Cone.  Ephes. 
%  Socr.  ii,  8,  15,  17,  and  iv,  37. 


TESmiOXY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.      51 

Sozomenus  testifies,  that  whatever  is  done 
without  the  approval  of  Rome  is  null  and  void. 
'*Irrita  esse,  qicw  prceter  sententiam  Episcnpi  Bo- 
mani  constituuntur.'^  * 

Let  us  listen  to  the  words  of  the  illustrious 
Doctor  and  ecclesiastical  historian,  Theodoret, 
(t460)  Bishop  of  Cyprus,  whose  diocese  was  one  of 
the  largest  in  the  East,  numbering  no  less  than 
800  parishes.    Having  been  deposed  and  excom- 
municated by  the  local  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and 
thrown  into  prison  by  order  of  the  Emperor,  he 
laid  his  cause  before  the  Holy  See,  and  sought 
redress  for  his  grievances,  at  the  hands  of  the 
'  Pope,  whom  he  styles  the  Father  of  Christians 
and  the  judge  in  matters  of  faith.     Mark,  how 
he  justifies  this  course  of  action  :    "  If  St.  Paul, 
the  herald  of  the  faith,  appealed  to  St.  Peter,' 
for  the  solution  of  the   difficulties,  which   dis- 
turbed the  tranquillity  of  the  Christian  Church 
at  Antioch,  how  much  more  does  it  behoove  us 
to  have  recourse  to  the  Apostolic  See,  in   our 
troubles?"     ^^Si    Faulus,    prcEco    veritatis,    ad 
magnum  Pdrum  ei^mnit,  ut  iis,  qui  Antiochioe 
contenderent,  ab  ipso  afferret  solutionem,  quanta 
magis  nos  ad  apostolicam  sedem  vestram  curri- 

In  allusion  to  this  subject,  Gerbert  makes  the 

*Soz.  iii,  8,  9,  and  vi,  39. 


52       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

appropriate  reflection,  that,  like  so  many  others 
in  the  first  ages  of  the  Church,  Theodoret  did 
not  appeal  to  the  Pope  as  to  a  powerful  man,  but 
as  to  the  successor  of  St.  Peter. 

While  his  case  was  still  pending,  he  besought 
the  Cardinal  Renatus  to  urge  the  Holy  Father 
to  decide  the  question.  ^'  For/^  writes  he,  "  the 
See  of  Rome  has  the  headship  and  direction  of 
all  the  Churches  throughout  the  world  ;  and  that 
for  many  reasons,  but  especially  because  she  lias 
never  been  tainted  by  heresy  nor  governed  by  a 
man  of  dangerous  tendency  in  matters  of  faith.'' 
^^Habet  enim  Srna.  ilia  Sedes  omnium  per  orbem 
ecdesiarum,  ducatum  et  principatum,  multis  quidem 
de  causis,  atque  hac  ante  omnia,  quod  ah  hceretica 
lahe  immunis  mansit,  nee  ullus  jidei  contra^^ia  sen- 
tiens  in  ea  sediV^^ 

It  was  for  the  same  purpose,  that  Theodoret, 
about  this  time,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Arch- 
deacon of  Rome. 

So  general  was  the  belief  in  this  prerogative 
of  the  Holy  See,  that  it  w^as  embodied  even  in 
the  Rituals  of  the  Church.     You  may  take  up 

*  Further  on  we  shall  see  that  Leo  the  Great  did  not  dis- 
appoint the  confidence  reposed  in  him.  In  the  present  chap- 
ter, in  which  it  is  our  purpose  to  sum  up  some  ef  the  most 
remarkable  passages  from  the  Holy  Fathers,  we  designedly 
avoid  all  citations  from  the  Popes,  in  order  to  present  them, 
under  one  head,  hereafter. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.      53 

the  old  Missal,  edited  by  Muratori  and  Peter 
Bellarini.  Turning  to  the  Mass  for  the  feast 
of  S.  S.  Peter  and  Paul,  you  will  find  in  the 
Preface  the  following  words:  *' God  has  so 
firmly  established  the  Apostolic  See,  on  the 
ground-work  of  truth,  that  it  can  never  be  moved 
by  the  shocks  of  falsehood;  and,  therefore,  in 
conformity  with  the  designs  of  Heaven,  all  the 
faithful  devoutly  embrace  the  doctrine  taught  by 
that  See,  to  which  the  government  of  the  whole 
Church  hiis  been  confided."  "  Ut  in  ventatis  tuce 
fundamine  soUdata,  nulla  moriifera  falsitatis  jnra 
praevaleanf.  Quce  {Ecdesia),  te  dispcjisanfe, devota 
suhsequitur,  quid  Sedes  ilia  cenmerit,  quam  tenere 
voluisti  totius  Ecclesice  principatumJ* 

Similar  expressions  occur  in  the  20th  Mass, 
which  represents  the  See  of  Rome  as  the  one,  to 
whose  guidance  God  has  intrusted  the  whole 
Church,  and  whose  teachings  He  requires  to  be 
implicitly  followed  every  where.  "  Ut  quid  hceo 
prcedicasset,  ostmderes  ubique  servandumj'^ 
•  The  Church  of  Spain,  having  met  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Tarragona,  465,  wrote  to  Pope  Hilary : 
"  We  rely  on  that  faith,  whose  encomium  was  pro- 
nounced by  the  mouth  of  the  Apostle,  and  wait 
for  an  answer  from  that  See,  whose  decrees  have 
never  been  tainted  with  error.''  '' Ad  fidem  re- 
mrrimm  apostolico  laudatam  ore,  inde  respcrasa 


54      TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS. 

qucerentesj  unde  nihil  errore,   sed  pontificali  totum 
deliberatione  prcecipiturJ^ 

About  the  same  time,  St.  Avitus,  acting  in 
the  name  and  with  the  authority  of  all  the  Bish- 
ops of  France,  expressed  the  belief  of  the  whole 
Gallican  Church,  in  a  written  communication, 
addressed  to  the  Roman  Clergy,  relative  to  the 
election  of  Pope  Symmachus :  ''  When  any  doubt 
occurs  about  the  Papal  election,  not  one  Bishop 
only,  but  the  whole  hierarchy  appears  to  be 
wavering/^ 

In  another  letter  to  Rome,  the  Saint  avers: 
*'  Whenever  any  difference  arises,  in  Church  mat- 
ters, it  is  our  duty  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  and,  as  members  of  the 
Church,  to  follow  our  head/'  "  Ut  membra  se- 
quentia.^'  Then  he  adds:  "The  truth  is  known 
to  us,  in  so  far  only,  as  the  Roman  Pontiff,  in 
virtue  of  the  prerogative  of  his  authority,  is  pleased 
to  explain  himself  to  those  that  apply  to  him.'' 
^^Tantum  mihi  Veritas  innotescere  poterit,  quantum 
se  Romance  urbis  antistes,  audoritatis  privilegio, 
expetentibus  respondisse  gaudebitJ^ 

In  the  homilies  of  this  Holy  Prelate,  the  same 
thought  occurs  again  and  again.* 

Should  the  present  volume  chance  to  fall  into 

♦  Galand,  X,  p.  746. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEBS,       55 

the  hands  of  non -Catholics,  we  would  respect- 
fully invite  their  attcution  to  the  fact,  that  all 
the  citations,  hitherto  given,  are  taken  from  writ- 
ers, who  flourished  during  the  first  five  centuries 
of  the  Christian  era ;  a  j^riod,  during  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  admission  of  nearly  all  Protestants, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  was  still  the 
unadulterated  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  It  seems 
to  us,  therefore,  that  even  the  most  skepticiil 
reader  can  take  no  exception  to  these  testimonies, 
or  raise  objections,  which  might  tend  to  invali- 
date the  arguments  based  u}X>n  such  premises. 

Herewith  we  enter  uj)on  the  sixth  century,  in 
which  the  first  authority  of  note  is  Possessor, 
the  Bishop  of  Africa.  His  opinion  is  clear,  from 
a  letter  in  which  he  thus  addresses  the  Holy 
Father :  ''  Whom  can  we  ask,  with  greater  right, 
for  strength,  in  our  wavering  faith,  than  the  in- 
cumbent of  that  See,  whose  first  head  received 
his  appointment  from  Christ  himself,  with  the 
words:  ^Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church.'  "  "  Aut  a  quo  magis  nu- 
tantis  Jidei  stabilitas  expectanda,  quam  ab  ejus 
Sedis  prceside,  cujus  primus  a  Christo  rector  aud- 
ivit :   Tit  es  PetrusJ^ 

How  significant  this  evidence,  which  com- 
prises, as  in  a  nutshell,  not  only  the  right,  by 
which  this  prerogative  is  vested  in  the  succes- 


56       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS. 

sors  of  St.  Peter,  but  likewise  the  matter  upon 
which  it  is  exercised,  and  the  reason  which  ren- 
ders it  indispensable  to  the  Church  of  God. 

About  this  time,  the  learned  Archdeacon  Fer- 
andus,  of  Carthage  (t505),  wrote  to  a  scholastic  of 
Constantinople:  "We  are  ready  to  learn  and 
not  to  teach.  If  you  are  anxious  to  know  the 
truth,  you  must  address  youi'self  to  the  head  of 
the  Apostolic  See.'' 

In  a  letter  to  the  Deacon  Pelagius,  the  same 
writer  calls  Rome  the  head  of  the  world — '^  ca- 
cumen  mundi;"  not,  of  course,  in  civil,  but  in 
ecclesiastical  matters,  inasmuch  as  the  approval 
and  confirmation  of  the  Holy  See  are  necessary, 
to  give  to  the  decisions  and  enactments  of  Synods 
any  binding  force.  He  expresses  the  same  con- 
viction, in  a  work,  entitled  "  Compendium  Can- 
onum  Ecdesiasticoi^m.^'  Voices  from  the  East 
proclaim  the  same  conviction. 

Stephen,  the  Metropolitan  of  Larissa,  in  Thes- 
saly  (t  532),  maltreated  by  Epiphanius,  the  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  determined  to  expose 
his  grievances  to  the  Pope.  But,  detained  in 
prison  and  unable  to  sue  for  the  coveted  favor  in 
person,  the  appellant  Prelate  dispatched  Theo- 
dosius  of  Echina,  one  of  his  suffragans,  to  lay 
before  the  Pope  a  written  petition,  wherein  he 
says:  "No  ecclesiastical  rank  can  set  aside  the 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHERS.       57 

authority  given  to  you  by  Christ,  our  Savior  and 
Chief  Pastor/'  ^^Nidlus  ecclesiasticus  ordo  illam 
vestram,  quce  a  Sakatore  omnium  et  primo  Pastore 
Vobia  est  collafa,  potent  excellere  potestcdem.^^ 

Stephen  stood  unmoved  by  the  clamors  of  par- 
tisanship, and  in  justification  of  his  course  flung 
into  the  face  of  opposition  the  belief  of  Chris- 
tendom. "  In  the  recognition  of  the  Holy  See, 
all  the  Churches  of  Christendom  acquiesce." 
"  In  ciijiis  confessione  omnes  mundi  Ecdesicc  re- 
quiescunt." 

His  proxy  held  the  same  sort  of  language  be- 
fore the  Pope  in  Rome. 

Not  less  striking,  in  some  of  its  features,  is  the 
testimony  borne  to  the  truth  by  the  African  Bishop, 
Facundus  Hermianensis  (t  553),  in  his  book 
"  Pro  defemione  trium  CapitidorumJ'^  Though  an 
avowed  schismatic,  he  plainly  and  repeatedly  ac- 
knowledges the  Holy  See  as  the  supreme  tri- 
bunal in  matters  of  faith. 

The  same  belief  is  learnedly  set  forth  in  the 
writings  of  the  severe  British  moralist,  Gildas, 
who  died,  according  to  Usher,  570."^  In  a  scath- 
ing treatise,  entitled  ''Increpatio  in  Clerum/^  he 
solemnly  declares,  that  the  fullness  of  the  Epis- 
copal authority  resides  in  the  See  of  Home,  and 

*  De  primord.  Eccl.  Brit. 


58       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

thence  flows  through  all  the  branches  of  the 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  Now,  if  it  be  true  that 
the  Holy  See  is  the  source  and  spring  of  all 
ecclesiastical  authority,  she  must  be  so,  in  a 
special  manner,  in  doctrinal  matters. 

The  conduct  of  the  courageous  Abbot,  Colum- 
BANUS  (t  515),  is  likewise  illustrative  of  the  same 
views,  with  respect  to  the  present  question.  Like 
many  others,  he  was  desirous  to  obtain  a  definite 
settlement  of  the  question  relative  to  the  Easter 
celebration.  Accordingly  he  addressed  Pope 
Boniface  by  letter,  and  humbly  submitted  his 
ideas  to  the  consideration  of  the  Holy  Father. 
Thus,  after  referring  to  the  traditions  of  the 
Scotch  and  Irish  Churches,  he  subjoined,  as 
though  fearful  of  forcing  his  personal  convic- 
tions on  the  attention  of  the  Holy  See:  "We 
state  these  particulars  in  order  to  impart  infor- 
mation, and  not  with  the  view  of  influencing 
the  decisions  of  your  Holiness;  for  that  were 
simply  ridiculous.''  "iYec  loci  namque  nee  or- 
dinis  est,  ut  magnce  luce  aiictoritati  aliquid  quasi 
discutiendo  irrogetur,  et  ridlculose,  te  Petri  Apos- 
toli  et  clavieularii  legitime  Cathedram  insedentem, 
fiui  QCGidentales  apices  de  Pascha  soUicitentJ^^ 

In  another  letter  relative  to  the  question  of 

*  Galland,  xn,  345. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       59 

the  "Three  Chapters,"  (de  trihus  Capitulis),  he 
writes  to  the  Pope :  ^'  I  assured  the  Irish,  that 
the  Roman  See  would  never  give  its  support 
to  one  who  advocated  heretical  doctrines.  Use, 
then,  your  sovereign  authority,  and  place  your- 
self at  the  head  of  the  armies  now  mingling  in 
the  contest  for  truth.  For  on  you  the  issue  of 
the  contest  depends."  ^^Ad  te  namque  totius  ex- 
ercUus  Doviini  periculum  pertinet.  Te  toium  cx- 
peciaty  qui  potejitatem  habes  omnia  ordinandi^' 
"  We  have  no  hope,"  writes  he,  "  except  in  the 
power  and  authority,  which  you  have  inherited 
from  St.  Peter."  "  Quia  unica  spes  de  jyrincipi- 
bus  es,  per  honorem  potens  Petri  Apostolic  And 
again:  "Though  Rome  is  celebrated  for  many 
other  reasons,  it  is  great  in  our  eyes,  by  reason 
of  that  chair  alone."  "  Licet  enim  Roma  magna 
est  et  vulgatay  per  istam  Cathedram  tantum  apud 
nos  est  magna  et  clara.'^ 

Like  Prosper,  Columbanus  remarks  that  the 
supremacy  of  Christian  Rome  is  acknowledged, 
where  the  dominion  of  Pagan  Rome  has  never 
been  felt.  "Xever,"  suggests  he,  "did  the  Caesars 
plant  the  imperial  standard  on  the  shores  of 
Ireland;  but  your  Holiness  reigns  over  the 
islands  of  the  sea,  as  well  as  in  your  capital. 
We  are  a  province  of  the  new  Rome,  w^iich  the 
presence  of  the  Yicar  of  Christ  has  almost  trans- 


60       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

formed  into  a  heavenly  abode."  ^^Et,  si  dici 
potest,  prope  ccelestes  estis." 

The  historian  Bercastell  informs  us,  that,  at 
this  epoch,  in  particular,  the  approving  looks  of 
the  Christian  community  were  centered  upon 
England,  Ireland  and  Scotland,  whose  respectful 
attachment  to  the  Holy  See  discovered  itself,  in 
the  numberless  pilgrimages  that  were  set  on  foot. 
The  highways  and  thoroughfares  betweeen  Eng- 
land and  Rome  always  were  alive  with  a  devout 
multitude  of  all  classes  and  conditions.  Laymen 
and  monks,  priests  and  bishops,  even  princes  and 
kings,  such  as  Ceadwalla,  Renred  and  Offa  bent 
their  steps  toward  the  Eternal  City,  to  do  hom- 
age to  the  Yicar  of  Christ.* 

The  Oriental  Churches  of  this  period  were  no 
less  devoted  to  the  Holy  See,  whose  infallibility 
they  recognized,  with  unquestioning  submission. 
Thus,  in  a  synodical  letter  written  by  Sophro- 
Nius,  immediately  (636)  upon  his  accession  to  the 
Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem,  the  distinguished  Pre- 
late declares,  that  the  rescript  of  Leo  is  a  rule  of 
faith,  which  together  with  all  the  papal  bulls  and 
briefs  he  and  the  other  Bishops  of  the  East  re- 
ceive, regard,  and  respect,  as  emanating  from 
Peter  himself. 

*  Berc    vi,  274. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.       61 

These  sentiments  were  openly  indorsed  by  all 
the  orthodox  Prelates,  who  subsequently  deputed 
Stephen,  the  Bishop  of  Dora,  to  solicit  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  See  against  the  danger- 
ous sect  of  the  Monothelites.  On  his  arrival, 
the  Bishop  presented  a  memorial  setting  forth 
the  troubles  that  afflicted  the  Eastern  Church, 
and  breathing  throughout  a  spirit  of  child-like 
confidence  in  the  Vicar  of  Christ.  "With 
David  we  could  wish,'^  say  the  petitioners,  "  to 
have  the  wings  of  a  dove,  that  we  might  fly 
to  you  and  implore  you  to  heal  our  wounds. 
Peter,  from  whom  you  hold  the  plenitude  of 
Apostolical  authority,  was  not  only  commissioned 
to  keep  the  Keys  of  Heaven  and  to  feed  the 
lambs  of  the  Lord,  but  was  moreover  endued 
with  indefectible  faith  and  commanded  to  con- 
firm his  faltering  brethren.  Thus  he  was  em- 
powered to  exercise  over  all  the  authority  of 
God  become  incarnate  for  all." 

"  Under  this  conviction,"  added  Stephen, 
"Sophronius  conducted  me  to  Calvary,  and,  on 
the  spot  sanctified  by  the  awful  mystery  of  the 
Redemption,  gave  me  this  solemn  injunction: 
*  Speed  thee,  in  all  haste,  to  the  Apostolic  See, 
on  which  the  foundations  of  the  true  faith  rest.' 
'  Ubi  orthodoxorum  dogmatum  fundameata  exist- 
untJ     ^  Urge  the  Vicar  of  Christ  to  pronounce 


62      TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHERS. 

his  judgment,  with  that  Apostolic  prudence, 
which  is  from  God,  in  order  that  we  may  weed 
the  Church  of  the  novelties,  which  have  of  late 
sprung  up  amongst  us/  In  compliance  with 
this  order,  I  am  come  hither,  to  prostrate  my- 
self at  your  feet,  supplicating  and  imploring  you 
to  stretch  out  your  hands  and  shield  the  imper- 
iled faith  of  Christ's  little  ones."  "  Propter  hoc 
properavi  vestris  apostoUcis  adesse  vestigiis,  expe- 
teiis  et  deprecans,  ut  fidei  Christianorum  pericli- 
tanti  manum  porrigere,  etcJ^ 

'^  Accede,  then.  Holy  Father !  to  this  request, 
which  I  prefer  in  behalf  of  all  the  Orientals, 
and  as  a  shining  lamp,  which  diffuses  over  the 
face  of  the  Universe  the  light  of  the  Gospel, 
dispel  the  shades  of  heresy."  '■^^ed  sicut  lumi- 
naria  in  universo  mundo  verbum  vitce  retinentes, 
introductas  extinguite  tenebras  hceresum.'' 

A  memorial  to  the  Pope,  drawn  up  by  thirty- 
seven  Archimandrites,  Priests,  Deacons,  and 
Monks,  in  the  name  of  all  the  Orientals,  re- 
echoed the  views  expressed  by  Stephen.  The 
dispositions  which  dictated  this  document,  may 
be  judged  from  its  own  w^ords :  "We  pray,  im- 
plore, and  conjure  the  Apostolic  See,  to  pro- 
nounce upon  this  matter."  "Petimus,  interpella- 
7nus,  et  conjuramus  Apostolicam  sedemJ^  * 

*  Hard,  iii,  711. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       63 

On  the  same  occasion,  Sergius,  the  Bishop 
of  Cypres,  wrote  to  the  Pope;  "According  to 
the  declaration  of  Eternal  Truth,  you  are  Peter, 
and  upon  the  ground-work  of  your  faith  the 
columns  of  the  Church  are  erected."  "Tu  eiiim 
sicut  cUvhium  veraciier  pronuntiat  verbumy  Petrus, 
et  super  fundamentum  tuum  Ecclemce  columywe  con- 
jinnatce  sunt.''  "You  keep  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven;  you  have  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  both  in  Heaven  and  on 
Earth;  you  are  the  censor  of  pernicious  errors 
and  the  teacher  of  indefectible  faith.''  "jfa 
princeps  d  doctor  immacidatce  fidei." 

The  African  Bishops  of  Numidia,  Mauritania 
and  Byzantium,  emulating  the  example  of  their 
brethren,  likewise  presented  an  address,  in  which 
they  discoursed,  in  the  following  terms,  upon  the 
prerogatives  of  the  Pope:  "There  can  be  no 
doubt,  that,  like  a  pure  and  inexhaustible  spring, 
the  Apostolic  See  pours  its  waters,  in  a  constant 
stream,  over  the  whole  Christian  world.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Fathers  have  ruled,  that  in  the 
remotest  provinces  nothing  should  be  done  or 
undertaken,  before  being  referred  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Holy  See,  by  whose  approval  every 
proceeding  is  stamped  with  the  sanction  of  au- 
thority." ^'Vt  quidquid,  quamvis  in  remotis 
agcretur   regionibus,  nan  prius    tractandum    vel 


64      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY    FATHERS. 

accipiendum  sit^  nisi  ad  notitiam  almoe  sedis 
vestrce  fuerlt  deductum,  et  hujus  audoritate  justa 
quce  fuisset  pronuntiatio  jirmaretur,^^ 

They  declare  that,  from  Rome  and  the  Holy- 
See,  the  other  Churches  have  derived  the  right 
of  preaching  the  word  of  God. 

We  would  fain  invite  the  attention  of  our 
readers  not  only  to  the  marked  uniformity  of 
belief,  with  which  the  North  and  South,  the 
East  and  West  recognized  the  doctrinal  Infalli- 
bility of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  but  also  to  the 
marvelous  similarity  of  language  in  which  they 
conveyed  their  meaning.  Even  the  most  super- 
ficial observer  must  be  struck  by  the  perfect 
unity  of  belief,  reflected  alike  in  the  unclassic 
sentences  of  the  austere  African  and  the  rounded 
periods  of  the  polished  Greek,  in  the  grotesque 
imagery  of  the  vivacious  Oriental  and  the  sober 
reality  of  the  phlegmatic  Saxon. 

The  striking  unanimity  with  which  the  whole 
Christian  world,  in  the  first  ages,  declared  itself 
in  favor  of  the  Infallibility  of  Christ's  representa- 
tive, and,  in  particular,  the  unfeigned  submission 
with  which  it  received  the  condemnation  of  Mon- 
othelism,  were  among  the  most  powerful  motives 
that  led  the  illustrious  Doctor  Newman  into  the 
pale  of  the  Church.  They  taught  him  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church  harmonizes  in 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       65 

this,  as  in  every  other  particular,  with  that  of 
modern  Catholics.  His  logical  mind  did  not 
shrink  from  drawing  the  inevitable  inference, 
nor  his  iron  will  from  conformins:  his  life  to  his 
belief.  Henceforth,  he  not  only  subscribed,  in 
theory,  to  all  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  creed, 
but  practically  did  homage  to  the  principle  of 
unity,  by  recognizing  in  the  Pope  the  infallible 
vicegerent  of  Christ. 

Let  us  now  listen  to  the  testimony  of  St. 
Maximus,  whose  versatile  genius  and  wonderful 
erudition  won  for  him  the  reputation  of  an  emi- 
nent theologian,  j)hilosopher,  and  statesman,  and 
qualified  him  to  be  the  master  of  the  great 
Anastasius.  He,  at  first,  held  the  post  of  im- 
perial secretary,  in  the  cabinet  of  Constantinople, 
but,  on  witnessing  the  intrigues  practiced  by  the 
court,  he  retired  from  public  life  and  buried 
himself  in  the  seclusion  of  a  monastery,  near 
Chalcedon.  From  this  holy  retreat,  in  which 
contemplation  only  quickened  the  vigor  of  his 
intellect,  he  wrote  a  letter,  which  thus  animad- 
verts upon  the  duplicity  of  Pyrrhus:  "If  Pyr- 
rhus  wishes  to  clear  himself  of  the  charge  of 
heresy,  let  him  justify  his  conduct  publicly. 
Let  him  prove  his  innocence  to  the  Pope  of  the 
Koman  Church,  that  is,  to  the  Apostolic  See, 
which  possesses,  to  the  fullest  extent,  the  power 
6 


66      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEKS. 

of  binding  and  loosing/'  "Jn  omnibus  et  per 
omnia.''  "  Because  it  is  the  Eternal  Word  Him- 
self, who,  from  the  highest  Heaven,  binds  and 
loosens  in  the  person  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  His 
Vicar  upon  earth.  If,  then,  Pyrrhus  justifies 
himself  before  prelates  of  an  inferior  rank  in  the 
Church,  instead  of  making  out  his  cause  before 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff  himself,  he  resembles  a 
man  who,  when  arraigned  for  murder  or  other 
misdemeanor,  would  evade  the  action  of  the  law 
by  establishing  his  innocence  before  unauthorized 
persons,  and  not  before  a  judge,  who  has  the 
right  of  acquitting  or  condemning  him.'' 

Anastasius,  faithful  to  the  precepts  of  his  mas- 
ter, always  evinced  the  same  reverence  toward 
the  Holy  See,  which,  in  a  letter  to  the  monks 
of  Cagliari,  in  Sardinia,  he  designates  ''  as  the 
inexhaustible  source  of  true  faith."  At  this  ep- 
och, the  faith  began  to  diffuse  its  light  over 
the  north  of  Europe,  and  history  bears  witness 
to  the  eagerness  with  which  the  first  apostles 
of  that  vast  territory  turned  to  Rome  for  direc- 
tion in  their  doubts,  and  for  counsel  in  their 
perplexities.  The  Holy  City  witnessed  the  arrival 
of  a  Willibrod,  and  a  Hubert,  who  quitted  the  sea- 
bound  shores  of  the  North  to  visit  the  Father  of 
the  faithful.  It  witnessed  the  arrival  of  a  St. 
Boniface,  who  received  from  Pope  Gregory  II 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.       67 

the  mission  of  bearing  the  titlings  of  the  Gospel  to 
the  distant  tribes  of  Germany,  with  an  order  to 
follow  the  instructions  given  him,  and  to  address 
himself,  in  every  difficulty,  to  the  Holy  See. 
AVhen  invested  with  the  Episcopal  character, 
Boniface  solemnly  engaged  to  maintain  inviola- 
bly the  unity  and  purity  of  the  Roman  Church, 
aware,  as  the  Pontiif  suggested  on  the  occasion, 
that  the  Apostle  St.  Peter  is  the  head  both  of 
the  Apostolate  and  the  Episcopate.  "  Quia  B. 
PetriLS  Apodolm  et  Apostolatus  et  Episcopaius 
pinncipium  existUJ^ 

After  replying  to  an  inquir>^  of  the  holy 
Apostle,  Gregory  remarked:  "We  answer  not 
thus  of  ourselves — non  ex  nobis,  quasi  ex  nobis — 
but  in  virtue  of  our  Apostolical  authority." 

How  happy  would  Germany  be,  and  how 
united  in  faith,  if,  in  aft^r  years,  her  sons  had 
not  forgotten  the  lessons  taught  them  by  their 
first  Apostle,  but  had  ever  faithfully  reproduced 
in  themselves  the  example  of  their  sturdy  an- 
cestors, whose  devotion  to  the  chair  of  St.  Peter 
merited,  from  the  pen  of  Boniface  himself,  the 
following  encomium :  "  They  looked  for  the  doc- 
trine of  primitive  Christianity  in  the  living  ora- 
cles of  Christ's  representative,  rather  than  in 
the  sacred  pages,  or  the  traditions  of  our  ances- 
tors in  the  faith.''    Because  both  Holy  Writ  and 


68      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

tradition  are  liable  to  misconstruction  and  falsi- 
fication, and  can  not  be  known  to  be  the  unadul- 
terated Word  of  God,  unless  recognized  as  such, 
and  interpreted  under  the  guidance  of  a  divinely- 
commissioned  teacher,  who  is  the  Pope.  ^^  M 
antiquam  christiance  religionis  institutionem  magis 
ah  ore  proedecessoris  ejus  quam  a  sacris  paginis 
et  paternis  traditionibus  expetunt — illius  velle — 
Ulius  nolle  tantum  expetunt  J^ 

How  is  it,  children  of  St.  Boniface,  that  now 
so  many  of  you  are  guided  by  other  maxims 
than  those  of  your  first  Apostles?  Holy  faith 
can  hot  change,  because  Christ,  its  author,  is  al- 
ways the  same,  "to-day,  yesterday,  and  forever.'' 
You  must,  then,  yourselves,  have  changed,  and 
by  changing,  have  forfeited  the  inheritance  of 
the  faith.  Ah,  yes!  sadly  have  you  strayed 
from  the  way  of  your  forefathers.  However, 
your  losses  are  not  irreparable;  you  may  yet  be 
reinstated  in  your  birthright,  if  you  will  return 
and  listen,  as  your  ancestors  did,  to  the  voice 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
whose  disciples  were  the  first  heralds  of  salva- 
tion among  you. 

At  the  epoch  to  which  the  foregoing  remarks 
apply,  t^vo  luminaries,  of  the  first  magnitude, 
destined  to  light  up,  with  their  effulgence,  the 
West  as  well   as   the  East,  just  began  to  peer 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHEUS.       69 

above  the  horizon  of  the  Church.     One  of  these 
was  the  profound  scholar  Bede,  wliom  St.  Boni- 
face himself  styled  the  torch  of  the  Church;  while 
Walafried,  Strabo,  and  William  of  Malmesbury,* 
struck  at  his  varied  acquirements,  declare  that 
he  can  never  be  praised  as  much  as  he  is  ad- 
mired.    Even  those  who  are  loath  to  do  justice 
to  the  superior  attainments  of  the    schoolmen, 
and  who  affect  to  sneer  at  the  monkish  authors, 
are  forced  to   pay  an   unwilling   tribute   to  his 
learning.      It   is,   then,   with    ^reat   satisfaction 
that  we  refer  our  readers  to  this  complete  Ency- 
clopedia of  sacred  science.    Hear  how  he  descants 
upon  the  subject  in  question:  "Together  with 
full  judicial  power  on  all  controverted  points  of 
doctrine,  Peter  received  the  keys  of  Heaven,  as 
a  sign  to  all  the  children  of  the  Church,  that  if 
they   separate    themselves   from   the   one  faith, 
which    he  teaches,    they  surrender  all   hope  of 
being  acquitted  of  their   guilt   and  of  entering 
the  eternal  portals."! 

The  same  authority  writes  of  king  Oswio: 
"This  Saxon  recognized  the  Roman  Church  as 
Catholic  and  Apostolic,  because  her  Sovereign 
Pontiffs  have  succeeded  each  other,  in  an  un- 
broken line,  from  St.  Peter  down."     From  these 

*  De  gest.  Angl.  Ill,  3.      t  Horn,  de  S.  S.  Pet.  et  Paul. 


70      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

premises  he  naturally  inferred  that  she  is  the 
first,  and,  therefore,  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 

And  here  we  would  remark,  in  passing,  that 
the  validity  of  this  argument,  which  seemed  so 
conclusive  to  the  Saxon  monarch,  can  not  be 
fairly  disputed  by  professing  Christians.  For, 
as  the  founder  of  the  New  Covenant  has  prom- 
ised, that  His  Church,  built  on  the  rock,  Peter, 
shall  never  give  way  to  the  assaults  of  hell,  all 
religious  controversy,  among  the  several  Chris- 
tian denominations,  must  finally  resolve  itself 
into  the  historf^  question  of  priority,  in  point 
of  time.  Now,  the  uninterrupted  succession  of 
the  Popes,  back  to  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 
proves,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  Catholic  Church 
is  the  primitive  Church,  and  therefore  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

The  faith  of  this  intelligent  Saxon  was  also 
that  of  the  Synod  held  at  Caleb ut.  Witness 
the  statutes  sent  to  Home  for  approval,  and 
signed  by  the  bishops,  abbots,  kings,  and  princes 
of  England,  who  all  unite  in  doing  homage  to 
the  Holy  See,  and  express  their  readiness  to  be- 
lieve and  do,  whatever  the  Yicar  of  Christ  may 
see  fit  to  prescribe.  The  other  illustrious  lumi- 
nary, who,  at  that  time  attracted  the  admiration  of 
the  Catholic  world,  was  St.  John  of  Damascene. 
He  had  fallen  upon  an  unhappy  age ;  for  heresy 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHERS.      71 

stalked  over  the  provinces  of  the  East,  aud  with 
a  spoiler's  hand,  ravaged  and  desecrated  the 
sanctuaries  of  the  true  faith.  Saddened  by  the 
outrages  daily  committed  by  impiety,  which  was 
crowned  in  the  person  of  Leo,  the  Iconoclast, 
the  intrepid  champion  of  the  faith,  exclaims: 
"  Hear,  ye  peoples  and  nations  of  every  tongue. 
Hear,  ye  young  and  old.  Depart  not  from  the 
d(x;trine  of  the  Apostolical  Church,  even  though 
an  angel  should  come  and  teach  you  otherwise." 
"  Licet  angelus  evangelizd  vobis  prceter  id.''  * 

The  celebrated  Abbot,  Stephan,  expresses 
himself  in  a  similar  manner.  About  this  epoch, 
Copronymus,  the  Iconoclast,  held  a  conventicle, 
which  was  designated  as  the  Seventh  General 
Council,  and  afterward  dispatched  emissaries  to 
notify  him  of  its  proceedings.  Supported  by  the 
highest  patronage  in  the  land,  these  minions  of 
an  earthly  power  approached  the  illustrious  Ab- 
bot, w^ho  was  confined  in  prison  by  the  Em])eror, 
and,  with  characteristic  arrogance,  delivered 
themselves  of  their  commission,  somewhat  in 
this  form :  "  The  Seventh  General  Council  de- 
cides." Undismayed  by  the  solemn  formality  of 
pretentious  words,  the  Confessor  of  Christ  replied 
w4th  a  smile :  '^  How  can  a  Council  convene  and 
legislate,  without  the  authority  and  coasent  of 

*Serm.  de  Transfiguratione. 


72      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

the  Apostolical  See?"  His  firm  attitude  silenced 
these  creatures  of  a  heretical  court,  and  foiled 
all  their  schemes  of  intimidation.  "  We  are  van- 
quished," said  the  imperial  commissary,  Callis- 
tus,  to  the  Emperor;  "it  is  impossible  to  resist 
the  learning  and  reasoning  of  that  man."  * 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  we  can  not 
forbear  inserting  the  declaration  of  the  three  Pa- 
triarchs who,  at  that  time,  governed  the  Churches 
of  Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch.  After 
informing  the  Emperor  that,  in  consequence  of 
the  irruption  of  the  Saracens,  they  would  be  pre- 
vented from  attending  the  Synod,  they  remarked, 
that  their  absence  would  by  no  means  invalidate 
its  decrees,  provided  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  ap- 
proved of  its  convocation,  and,  through  his 
legates,  presided  at  its  meetings  and  confirmed  its 
actions.  In  support  of  their  assertion,  they  cite 
the  Sixth  General  Council,  whose  decisions  were 
received  by  the  Church,  though  the  same  three 
provinces  were  unrepresented. 

These  circumstances  may  be  built  up  unto  a 
powerful  argument.  For,  if  these  Patriarchs,  with 
all  their  suffragans,  considered  their  absence  from 
a  General  Council  as  quite  immaterial,  provided 
the  Pope  would  exercise  the  authority  vested  in 

*  Butler  xvii,  p.  358. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE    HOLY   FATHERS,       73 

his  person,  they  evidently  did  not  suppose  that 
tlie  right  of  imparting  validity  to  a  dogmatic 
'decision  ultimately  resides  in  the  body  of  the 
assembled  Episcopate,  but  in  the  Apostolical 
Holy  See,  Why  should  they  deem  their  pres- 
ence less  necessary  than  that  of  others?  What 
was  true  of  them,  held  with  equal  force  of  the 
other  dignitaries  of  the  Church. 

The  latter  half  of  this  century  admired  the 
wonderful  erudition  of  Alcuix,  whom  Charle- 
magne associated  to  himself  in  tlie  glorious  work 
of  literary  restoration  in  France  and  Germany. 
This  preceptor  and  friend  of  one  of  the  most 
illustrious  sovereigns  that  ever  swayed  the  desti- 
nies of  Europe,  has  left  a  book,  entitled  "De 
Divinls  OfficiU"  wherein  he  speaks  of  the  Holy 
See  as  the  head  from  which  the  gifts  of  grace  are 
diffused  through  tlie  whole  body  of  the  Church. 
In  the  same  spirit,  he  wrote  to  the  newly  elected 
Pope,  Adrian :  "  As  I  acknowledge  you  for  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  so  I  also  recognize  you  as 
the  heir  of  his  wonderful  authority.'^  "/to  d 
miriJi.coe  potestatis  hceredem  oonfiteor.^'  "  I,  there- 
fore, surrender  myself  entirely  to  you.  Blessed 
be  the  tongue  of  your  mouth,  which  speaks  the 
saving  words  of  life,  and  at  whose  bidding  the 
portals  of  Heaven  are  opened  to  the  believer." 
*^  0  beatissima  lingiha  oris  ve-stri  in  qua  est  edema 
7 


74      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

medieina  salutis,  per  quam  codi  aperiuntur  ere- 
dentibusJ^ 

In  a  letter  to  Pope  Leo  III,  he  seems  at  a  loss 
for  words  to  express  his  profound  veneration  for 
the  head  of  the  Church.  "  In  you/'  writes  he, 
^'  faith  is  resplendent.  Under  your  pastoral  care, 
the  flock  of  the  Lord  increases.  You  are  the 
consolation  of  the  afflicted,  the  help  of  the  op- 
pressed, the  hope  of  them  that  call  on  you,  the 
light  of  life,  the  ornament  of  religion.^'*  These 
words,  addressed  to  Leo  III,  well-nigh  a  thou- 
sand years  ago,  apply,  with  equal  propriety,  to  the 
Pontiif  now  reigning.  Is  not  faith  eminently  re- 
splendent in  Pius  IX  ?  Is  he  not  our  consolation, 
our  hope,  our  help,  and  our  protection  ?  To  the 
skeptical  ears  of  reformed  Germany  these  expres- 
sions, dictated  by  the  ardent  faith  of  her  Alcuin, 
sound  like  the  uncouth  jargon  of  a  barbarous  age, 
but  to  the  faithful  they  are  familiar  household 
words,  all  the  sweeter  because  they  come  to  us  re- 
peated by  the  distant  echoes  of  a  thousand  years. 

Extracts  Uke  the  above  do  not  represent  the 
wild  fancies  of  a  solitary  enthusiast.  Agilram, 
Bishop  of  Metz,  writes  to  Charlemagne :  "  Every 
one  knows  that  the  Pope,  wielding  the  power 
of  St.  Peter,  is  authorized  to  pass  sentence  on  all 

*  Baron,  ad  annum  772. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY  FATHEES.       75 

the  Churches,  and  is  not  amenable  to  another 
tribunal."  "  Utpote  qim  (sedes)  de  omnibus  Eo- 
chmsfcis  habeatjudicandi,  neque  cuiqiiam  licet  de 
ejus  judicare  judicio.'^ 

The  so-called  Carolingian  hooks— ''libri  Car- 
olini''— likewise  testify  to  this  common  faith  of 
all  France  and  Germany.     In  allusion  to  the 
sedulous  care  with  whicli  Rome  watches  over  the 
religious  instruction  of  the  faithful,  these  ven- 
erable chronicles  remind  us,  that  the  Holy  See 
presents  to  all  the  Churches  of  the  world  the 
chalice  of  her  sublime  doctrine.    "  MeUiflucE  prce- 
dicationis  pocula  CathoUcis  per  orbein  ministrat 
Ecclesii.s:'      Hence    the    duty    of    seeking,    in 
matters  of  faith,   for    help  from    her,  who'  has 
neither  ^' stain   nor  wrinkle,'^  and   who,   while 
crushing  the  dragon-head  of  heresy,  strengthens, 
in  the  truth,  the  mind  of  the  believer.     ''  Ut  ab 
eapost  Christum  ad  muniendam  fidem  adjutorium 
petard  J  qum  7ion  habet  maealam,  neque  rugam  et 
portenfosa  ha^resum  capita  calcat  et  fidelium  vien- 
tes  in  fide  corroborat:'     France  and   Germany  " 
owe  their  confirmation  in  the  faith  to  the  Apos- 
tolical  See  of  Rome.     "  Inde  semper  suscepit  fidei 
ChrismataJ'^ 

The  same  convictions  are  expressed  by  Aga- 

*  Lib.  i,  c,  6. 


76      TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

bond,  in  his  letter  to  Louis  tlie  Pious,  and  by 
Jonas  of  Orleans,  in  a  treatise  entitled  "  De  in- 
stitutione  regia.'^ 

Jesse,  Bishop  of  Amiens  (t836),  exhorts  his 
clergy  to  cling  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  See, 
lest  the  door-keeper  of  Heaven  close  the  portals 
against  them,  should  he  see  them  dissent  from 
his  teaching. 

The  religious  history  of  France,  at  this  period, 
is  particularly  interesting.  Synods  met  successive- 
ly at  Soissons  (867),  at  Douzi  (871),  at  Pontigny 
(876),  at  Troyes  (878),  at  Tribur  (895),  and  in 
their  acts  emphatically  declared  for  unquestion- 
ing submission  to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See. 

JEneas,  of  Paris,  wrote  a  book,  in  which  it 
was  his  object  to  prove,  by  historical  documents 
from  the  time  of  Ignatius  to  that  of  Photius, 
that  the  Pope  is  not  indebted,  for  his  supreme 
judicial  power,  to  any  Council  or  Synod,  but 
only  to  Christ,  from  whom  he  received  it  in  the 
person  of  St.  Peter.* 

Even  in  the  East,  which  was  now  on  the  eve 
of  a  lamentable  schism,  we  see  the  sun  of  faith 
still  lingering  upon  the  horizon,  and  gilding, 
with  its  departing  glories,  the  mountain  heights 
of  learning.     In   an  address  to   Leo  III,  the 

*  Specil.  D'Achery,  143,  148. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE  HOLY   FATHERS.       77 

celebrated  Theodore  Studita  stj^les  the  Roman 
Pontiff  the  ''  head  of  all  heads/'  "  omnium  capi- 
turn  capnty^  '^ z(7r>  oXwu  xtcalwv  xz<faXr^\^y^  and 
strenuously  contends,  with  all  the  energy  of  con- 
scious truth,  that  every  novelty  broached  by 
those  who  have  strayed  away  from  the  right 
path,  falls,  of  necessity,  under  the  ban  of  Peter 
and  his  successors.  *^Ad  Petrum  utique  vel  ejus 
successorem  quidqukl  in  eeclesia  cathoUca  inno- 
vatur  per  eos,  qui  aberrant  a  veritatey  necesse  est 
referri.^^  Alluding  to  the  example  of  Leo  the 
Great,  he  writes :  "  Imitate,  we  beseech  you,  the 
illustrious  Pontiff,  who  bore  the  same  name  as 
yourself,  and  who  sprang  up,  like  a  lion,  when 
the  Eutychian  heresy  broke  out.''  ^^JSmuIare, 
prcecamur  cognominum  tibi  jyaparUy  atque  ut  ille, 
pullukmte  turn  hceresi  Eutychiana,  leonum  in 
morem  experrcdus  ed/^  etc. 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  himself,"  pursues  our  author, 
"directs  and  guides  the  head  of  the  Church." 
"  Ejus  est,  de  ecetero,  qnce  Deo  sunt  placita,  facere 
Spiritus  Sancti  dudu,  a  quo,  id  in  aliis,  sic  in  hoc 
quoque  rec^itur  et  gubematur."  *  Of  those  who, 
by  their  obstinate  disobedience,  rend  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  he  remarks :  "  I  solemnly  declare 
before  God  and    man,   that  they  are  sundered 

*  Bar.  ad  ann.,  809;  Berc.  viii,  U2. 


78      TESTIMONY  OF  THE  HOLY  FATHEES. 

from  the  body  of  Christ  and  from  that  chief  See 
to  which  the  keys  of  faith  have  been  committed, 
and  against  which,  according  to  the  promise  of 
the  Eternal  Truth,  the  gates  of  hell  never  have 
prevailed  in  past  ages,  nor  shall  prevail  unto 
the  consummation  of  time."  "  Deum  hominesque 
contestor,  sejunxerunt  se  a  corpore  Christi,  a  cory- 
phcea  sede,  in  qua  Christus  posuit  Jidei  daveSy 
adversus  quam  non  2)rcevaluerunt  per  omne  scecu- 
lurriy  nee  prcevalehunt  portce  inferi,  sicut  promisit 
ille,  qui  non  mentitur.'^  * 

In  his  letter  to  Pope  Paschal,  he  writes: 
"You  are  Peter;  you  fill  and  adorn  his  See." 
^^  Petrus  enim  tu;  Petri  sedem  coronans  et  guher- 
nansJ^  "Confirm,  then,  your  brethren;  this  is 
the  proper  time.  Come  from  the  West  and 
stretch  out  your  saving  hand  to  the  East." 

There  is  little  doubt  that  many  a  well  mean- 
ing Greek  of  that  period  shared  the  views,  of 
Theodore.  But  it  strikes  us  as  somewhat  curious 
that  the  schismatic  Greek  and  Russian  Churches 
should  have  clipped  from  his  writings  so  start- 
ling a  condemnation  of  their  errors  as  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  which  they  have  placed  among 
the  pious  lessons  read  on  the  eleventh  of  No- 
vember:  "Stretch    out   thy  hand   to   help   the 

*Hard.  ix,  605. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS.      79 

Church  of  Constantinople,  and  prove  thyself  the 
successor  of  tlie  first  Leo.  Listen  favorably  to 
our  petition,  because  thou  art  Peter,  to  whom 
Christ  has  said,  '  Confirm  thy  bretliren/  "  * 

Is  it  not  surprising  that,  up  to  this  very  day, 
these  fallen  Chui-ches  should  continue  to  publish 
the  memorial  of  their  own  apostasy,  and  despite 
the  reflections  that  it  is  likely  to  call  up,  should 
persist  in  their  schism  ?  How  incomprehensible 
are  the  ways  of  Providence,  which  makes  even 
enemies  subserve  the  interests  of  the  Church ! 
The  unaccountable  conduct  of  these  sectaries  is 
far  from  being  a  solitary  instance.  Even  Pho- 
tius  unwillingly  contributes  his  mite  to  the  truth 
when  he  tells  us  that  the  Manicheans  styled  them- 
selves Christians,  while  they  denominated  real 
Christians  Romans.  How  re-assuring  to  the 
Catholic,  who  at  the  present  day  so  often  hears 
himself  assailed  as  a  Papist  and  Romanist. 
These  apjjellations,  though  meant  to  be  oppro- 
brious epithets,  are,  in  reality,  highly  expressive 
of  the  character  of  genuine  Christianity,  and 
ally  the  true  believer  to  those  who,  in  the  earlier 
days  of  the  Church,  fought  the  battles  of  the 
Lord. 
.-  In  the  West,   the   celebrated   Hincmar,    of 

*De  Maistre,  Du  Pape,  p.  90. 


80       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

Rheims,  wlio  flourished  about  this  time  (882), 
made  his  profession  of  faith  before  the  Council 
of  Douzi :  "  The  Roman  See,  the  teacher  of  all 
the  Churches  in  the  world/'  ''  Omnium  Ecclesia- 
rum  in  toto  orbe  magistraJ^  Nay,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Flodoard,  Hincmar  affirmed,  in 
the  most  explicit  manner,  that  all  controversies, 
once  brought  before  the  tribunal  of  the  Apostoli- 
cal See,  are  terminated  by  its  irrevocable  sen- 
tence. In  a  letter  to  his  nephew,  he  calls  the 
Holy  See  ^^  the  source  of  religion,  and  of  all  ec- 
clesiastical discipline  and  jurisdiction."  ^'A  quo 
rivus  religionis  et  omnis  ecclesiasticce  ordinationis 
aique  canonicce  jnrisdidionis  profluxit,''  No 
theologian  will  fail  to  perceive  the  weight  of  this 
testimony ;  for  Hincmar  is  distinguished  as  the 
most  zealous  advocate  of  every  shadow  of  episco- 
pal right.* 

Ratramnus,  of  Corbey,  and  Paulinus,  of 
Aquileia,  both  contemporaries  of  Hincmar,  pro- 
fess the  same  faith.  Ratramnus  teaches :  "  All 
ecclesiastical  decisions  must  be  submitted  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Pope,  that  he  may  ratify  what 
is  proper  and  amend  what  is  amiss.  ''Ad  ejus 
judicium  pendeat,  quidquid  in  eedesiastieis  ne- 
gotiis  disponitur,  id  ex  ejus  arbitrio  vel  maneat 
constitidum,  vel  corngafur  erratum.''^  f 

*  Hist.  Rem.  iii,  13.  t  Nat.  Alex.  xiL 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY   FATHEPJ?.       81 

Paulinas,  contrasting  the  tranquillity  that 
reigned  in  the  "West  with  the  troubles  that  agita- 
ted the  East,  ascribes  the  difference  to  the  signifi- 
cant fact,  that  the  former  remained  firm  in  its 
allegiance  to  the  Holy  See,  while  the  latter 
plunged  headlong  into  a  fatal  schism.  The  same 
explanation  accounts  satisfactorily,  in  our  days, 
for  the  endless  divisions  of  the  Eastern  schismat- 
ics, and  for  the  uninterrupted  unity  of  the  Cath- 
olic Communion.  "iVos  intra  ter-minos  Apostolicce 
dodrinoi  et  S.  Eommnce  Ecclesice  firmiter  stamnj^^ 
illomim  prohatissimam  audoritatem  sequentes  et 
sandissimis  inhcerentes  dodrinisJ' 

Let  us  now  listen  to  the  celebrated  Rabanus 
Maurus  (t856),  who,  from  Abbot  of  his  mon- 
astery, became  Bishop  of  Mayence,  and  who  was 
so  great  a  patron  of  learning  that  he  may  be 
deservedly  styled  the  Mecsenas  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury. He  possessed  the  happy  art  of  blending 
the  love  of  literature  with  that  of  religion,  as  we 
may  see  from  a  poem,  in  which  he  consecrates 
the  graces  of  the  muse  to  the  service  of  the  Holy 
See.  We  quote  the  following  verses  on  Pope 
Gregory  IV,  who  then  governed  the  Church  of 
Christ : 

Sedia  apostoliece  lux  aurea  Romce 

Et  dcciie,  et  doctor  plebis,  et  almus  amor. 


82       TESTIMONY  OF   THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

Vestra  valet  caelum  reserare  et  claudere  lingua 
Principi  apostolico  Petro  conjunctus  in  cevunif 
In  terra  vicem  cujus  et  ipse  gerit. 

The  voice  of  Catholicity  speaks  to  Pius  IX, 
in  the  same  strain. 

Lupus,  of  Ferriers  (f  862),  who  lived  on  terms 
of  intimacy  with  Rabanus  and  Hincmar,  and 
who  took  an  active  part  in  the  administration  of 
the  empire,  under  Charles  the  Bald,  sums  up,  in 
a  few  comprehensive  words,  all  that  has  been  said 
or  sung  on  the  prerogative  of  the  Holy  See.  "  She 
neither  deceived  herself,  nor  was  she  ever  de- 
ceived by  another,'^  is  the  laconism  which  tells  us 
his  belief  as  well  as  the  most  elaborate  treatise 
could  have  done.  '^  Nee  se  fefellit,  nee  ah  aliquo 
falli  potuitJ^ 

Toward  the  close  of  the  same  century,  Hatto, 
Archbishop  of  Mayence,  united  with  the  Bishops 
of  Bavaria,  and  Theotmar,  acting  under  in- 
structions from  the  prelates  of  Juvavia,  drew  up 
written  communications,  which  were  forwarded 
to  Pope  John  IX,  with  the  view  that,  if  any 
thing  should  have  been  said  or  done  amiss,  it 
might  be  rectified  by  his  authority.  ^'Ut  vestra 
potentia  ad  reetitudinis  lineam  perdueatur.^^ 

We  now  enter  upon  the  tenth  century.  Po- 
litical intrigues  and  party  spirit  sometimes  ob- 
truded into  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  candidates 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHEES.       83 

whose  personal  character  was  not  wholly  above 
reproach.  Yet,  compared  with  the  l^ng  list  of 
saintly  |X)ntiffs  who  preceded  and  followed  them, 
these  unworthy  representatives  of  Christ  are  very 
few  in  number.  The  celebrated  Protestant  histo- 
rian Herder,  frankly  avows  that  no  lineage  of 
kings  or  princes,  or,  indeed,  of  any  order  of  so- 
ciety, bears  so  stainless  a  reputation.  He  goes 
so  far  as  to  admit,  that  even  those  held  up,  by 
narrow-minded  malevolence,  to  the  derision  of 
posterity,  committed  sins  which,  in  worldly  sov- 
ereigns, would  have  been  passed  over  as  the  veriest 
foibles,  without  so  much  as  eliciting  a  comment 
from  the  annalist.  However,  as  it  is  not  our 
province  to  write  an  apology  for  the  failings  of 
individuals,  we  shall  willingly  concede  that  some 
did  disgrace  the  sacred  character  which  they  bore. 
Such  an  admission  can  only  tend  to  strengthen 
our  position ;  for,  as  Baron ius  notices,  none  of 
those  Popes  who  are  most  open  to  censure  ever 
decided  erroneously  on  ecclesiastical  questions, 
and  still  less  on  doctrinal  points.  Moreover,  as 
the  same  writer  bids  us  remark,  the  devotion  to- 
ward the  Holy  See  never  showed  itself  so  strik- 
ingly, in  all  pai*ts  of  the  Christian  world,  as 
under  those  very  Popes  whose  morality  was  of  a 
doubtful  kind.  The  faithful  did  not  regard  the 
merits  of  those  who  sat  on  the  chair  of  Peter,  but 


84       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

the  privileges  attached  thereto.  ^^Non  merita  se- 
dentium,  9ed  Jura  sedis  consider  antes. ^^  Hence, 
the  learned  historian  very  ingeniously  applies  to 
the  Holy  See  of  that  time  the  words  of  the  Can- 
ticles :  "  I  am  black,  but  beautiful.^^  "  Nigra 
sum,  sedformosa  ^' — black,  owing  to  vices  of  those 
who  occupy  me;  beautiful,  on  account  of  the 
privileges  annexed  to  me. 

These  remarks  are  corroborated  by  the  writ- 
ings of  the  most  learned  and  holy  men  living  at 
that  epoch.  Thus  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of 
Troslei  (909),  unanimously  declared  that  Christ 
had  founded  His  Church  upon  Peter,  and  that 
Gaul  was  indebted  to  the  zeal  of  the  Roman 
Pontiffs  for  her  unshaken  steadfastness  in  the 
faith.  ^' Sed  ah  eo,  ejusque  successoribus  etiam 
edoda  firmitatem  fidei,  quam  primo  accepit,  hade^ 
nus  inconcussam  servare  studuit." 

St.  Odo,  of  Clugni  (f  942),  whose  learning 
and  holiness  made  him  the  ornament  of  his  time, 
hesitated  not  to  affirm  that,  even  in  those  evil 
days,  all  the  good  that  was  done  in  Church  mat- 
ters was  due  to  him,  who  had  received  from  the 
Lord  the  injunction  of  confirming  his  brethren. 

Otto,  of  Vercelli,  in  his  work  "  De  pressuris 
ecdesiasticis,^^  and  Pilgrim,  Bishop  of  Passau, 
in  his  address  to  Benedict  VII,  express  them- 
selves in  a  similar  manner. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHERS.       85 

Even  Nicholas,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
anxious  to  heal  the  wounds  of  the  Greek  Church, 
invoked  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  and 
warned  the  Prince  of  the  Bulgarians  tliat  it  is  a 
heinous  crime  not  to  recognize  it.* 

Ratherus,  of  Verona,  introduced  into  his 
Itinerarium  the  following  sententious  remark, 
which  discovers  at  once  his  fondness  for  classic 
brevity  and  his  thorough  Catholicity  :  ^'  Never 
was  that  valid  which  Rome  rejected,  nor  that  in- 
valid which  Rome  approved.''  ^^Kunquam  ratum 
quod  illic  irritum,  et  nunquam  irriium  quod  ibi 
ratum  fuo'it  visum.^'  In  his  appeal  to  the  Pope, 
whom  he  styles  the  Father  of  the  whole  world — 
^^unkerso  orbi  F(der" — his  feeling  heart  pours 
itself  out  in  the  following  touching  entreaty  :  "  I 
conjure  you  for  the  love  of  the  Almighty  to  fly 
to  our  assistance  in  the  place  of  Him  whose  chair 
you  occupy  for  this  purpose,  that  you  may  pre- 
vent the  gates  of  hell  from  ever  prevailing  against 
the  Church."  "/?i  Omnipotentis  amove  precor, 
ejusque  vice  suecurratis,  cujus  ideo  sedem  obtinetis, 
ne  portce  inferi  prcevalei'e  adversum  Ecclesiam  non 
sinatis.^' 

The  celebrated  Abbot  Fleury  (f  999),  charged 
with  several  commissions  from  the  Pope  to  King 

*  Baron,  ad  ann.,  983.     Hard  vi,  695-739. 


86      TESTIMONY  OF  THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

Robert,  gives  an  account  of  his  embassy  in  a 
document  which  bears  the  following  inscription : 
^'  To  the  Venerable  Pontiff  who  fills  the  See  of 
Rome,  and  who  is,  therefore,  the  teacher  of 
the  whole  Church/^  "Domino  semper  venerahili 
Papce  jRomance  et  Apostolicce  sedis  prcesidiy  et 
ideo  universalis  Ecclesice  Dootori."  In  a  book 
containing  a  collection  of  canons  for  the  guidance 
of  King  Hugo  and  the  crown-prince  Robert,  the 
same  author  reasons  thus  upon  the  Gospel  text, 
which  so  frequently  recurs  in  our  pages  :  "Christ 
said  to  his  apostle,  ^  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  , 
this  "rock  I  will  build  my  Church/  Mark  the 
words,  ^my  Church,'  not  thine.  If  the  Church 
is  not  Peter's,  whose  is  she  ?  If  we  feel  not  the 
peculiar  force  of  this  expression,  nor  model  our 
conduct  accordingly,  we  neither  lead  the  lives  nor 
understand  the  language  of  Catholics.''  "Certe 
carissimi  prindpeSj  nee  Catholice  vivimus,  nee 
Catholice  loquimurJ'  How  piquant  this  remark 
when  applied  to  Protestant  sovereigns  or  the 
Russian  Czar,  and.  how  very  caustic  when  re- 
ferred to  Catholic  princes  following  in  their 
footsteps  ? 

Almost  at  the  dawn  of  the  eleventh  century 
we  meet  with  equally  historic  evidence,  the  same 
expressions  in  a  letter  written  to  the  Pope  by 
FuLBEET  of  Chartres  (tl029),  concerning  the 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       87 

excommunicated  Count  Falco  of  Anjou;  again,  in 
an  allocution  of  the  Archbishop  of  Burges  before 
the  Council  of  Limoges;  and,  finally,  in  a  collec- 
tion of  Canons,  compiled  by  Bernard  of  Worms, 
the  preceptor  of  the  Emperor  Conrad. 

Ten  years  later  we  see  the  earnest  convictions 
of  the  age  yet  more  clearly  exemplified,  in  the 
conduct  of  Ablx)t  Odilo  (tl039).  A  number  of 
Polish  embassadors,  one  day,  presented  them- 
selves at  the  doors  of  the  monastery  to  reclaim 
Prince  Casimir,  who  had  exchanged  the  court 
for  the  cloister.  The  Abbot  declared  himself  un- 
able to  accord  their  request,  because  it  involved 
a  dispensation  which  exceeded  the  limits  of  his 
powers.  He  dismissed  them,  therefore,  with  the 
words, "  That  they  must  apply  to  the  highest  tri- 
bunal on  earth,  namely,  the  A}x>stolical  See  of 
Rome,  the  Vicar  of  Christ."  ^^Proinde  supremum 
in  ten-is  tribunal,  s^tpreniamque  potestatem,  sedan 
videlicet  Apostolicam  Romanam,  et  Vicarium  Christi 
adirentJ^  * 

In  the  Synod  of  Milan,  St.  Peter  Damian, 
renowned  for  the  Apostolic  freedom  ^vith  which 
he  maintained  the  truth  before  Kings  and  Popes, 
designated  the  Church  of  Rome  as  the  holy 
teacher^— " sa»c<a??i  nmgistram"  In  the  same 
spirit  of  child-like  submission,  he  speaks  of  the 

*  Baron,  ad  ann.  1047. 


88       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

Holy  See  as  the  teaching  guardianship  of  Peter, 
according  to  whose  righteousness  all,  that  has 
been  disfigured,  should  be  remodeled. 

And  here  remark,  in  passing,  how  our  Saint's 
ideas  on  ecclesiastical  reform  disagree  with  those 
of  the  modern  Reformers.  According  to  him,  the 
Church  is  manifestly  a  self-preserving  organiza- 
tion, whose  principle  of  regeneration  lies  in  the 
Holy  See. 

In  one  of  his  letters,  the  same  writer  compares 
the  decisions  of  the  Roman  See  to  a  keen-edged 
blade,  with  which  Peter  cuts  off  the  head  of 
every  obstinate  error,  in  order  to  strengthen  all 
the  children  of  the  Church  in  the  unity  of  the 
faith.  ^'Evangelico  muerone  veritati  resistentium 
cervieem  obtruncat^  et  ad  invictissime  dimicandum, 
totam  Christi  militiam  in  unius  cai^itatis  et  Jidei 
unitate  confirmaU' 

The  precise  meaning  attached  by  the  saint  to 
the  words  Apostolical  See  and  Roman  Churchy  is 
evident  from  the  bearing  of  the  whole  passage. 
Still  they  may  derive  additional  light,  by  being 
collated  with  expressions  in  another  letter,  in 
which  the  writer  himself  defines  his  meaning, 
when  he  says:  "You  are  the  Apostolical  See; 
you  are  the  Boman  Church.^'  "  Vos  estis  Apos- 
tolica  Sedes,  vos  Romana  estis  Ecckslay  "  Whith- 
ersoever Peter  leads  you,  there  also  is  the  new 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       89 

Rome  of  Christianity.'' — "Quo  vos  Pefrus  vobis- 
cwnfugiens  attrahit,Ulic  Bomana  est  Ecclesia.'"^ 
Catholics  of  our  day  are,  without  doubt,  sustained 
by  the  same  abiding  faith.  Thence  that  inward 
assurance,  which  can  smile  with  placid  serenity, 
while  the  heel  of  the  spoiler  is  on  the  sacred  soil 
of  Rome,  and  an  armed  band  of  outlaws  thrciit- 
ens  destruction  to  the  temporal  power.  Even 
though  Providence,  in  its  inscrutable  designs, 
should  permit  Pius  IX  to  be  again  exiled  from 
the  Eternal  City,  the  faith  of  Peter  would  re- 
main as  unshaken,  as  it  has  been  for  eighteen 
hundred  years.  The  ])resence  of  the  Holy  Father 
would  transform  also  a  barren  island  of  the  sea 
into  a  new  Home,  into  a  new  Capitol  of  the 
Christian  world,  from  which  he  would  rule  his 
spiritual  kingdom,  and,  with  the  power  of  Christ, 
hurl  his  denunciations  against  the  high-handed 
injustice  of  his  oppressors. 

William  of  Poitiers,  in  his  history  of  King 
AVilliam,  calls  the  Pope  the  teacher 'of  all  the 
prelates  of  the  Church.  Arnulph  and  Yexe- 
RUS  of  Milan,  both  partisans  of  the  emperor  and 
enemies  of  the  Pope,  subscribe  unhesitatingly  to 
the  dogmatical  infallibility  of  the  Sovereign  Pon- 
tiff.    "Never,"   remarks  Venerus,    "never  did 


♦Baron,  ad  ann.,  1049-1064.     Butler  iii,  194. 

8 


90      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

the  See  of  Rome  deceive  the  world  by  an  iniqui- 
tous decree,  nor  could  she  herself  ever  be  deceived 
by  heretical  fallacies."  ^^  Quae,  aliquo  pravo  dog- 
mate  nee  aliquando  fefellity  nee  aliqua  hceresi  un- 
quam  falli  potuitJ^ 

Arnulph  repeats  the  same,  in  his  history  of 
Milan  *  "  Though  often  violently  assailed/'  writes 
Anselm  of  Lucca,  ^^  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  has 
always  stood  unmoved."  ^^  Licet  pulsatus,  licet 
concussusj  tamen  stetit  immobilisJ^  ^*  Because 
heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  not  the 
words  of  Him  who  said,  ^Thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church.' "f 

About  the  same  time,  Siegfried  of  Mayence 
and  the  Bishops  of  the  province  of  Rheims,  pro- 
nounced, with  no  less  decision,  upon  this  prerog- 
ative of  the  Roman  Pontiif.J  Even  in  the  East, 
in  which  the  chorus  of  unity  was  hushed  by  the 
oppression  of  the  schismatics,  an  occasional  voice 
was  heard,  reechoing  the  strains  of  other  lands. 
Theophylact  (tl096),  the  Archbishop  of  Bulgaria, 
declares  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Gospels: 
"To  Peter  the  Church  has  been  committed  for 
instruction  in  the  faith."  '^  Petrd  Ecclesia  in  fide 
erudienda  traditur.^'  §  "  For  this  reason  the  Lord 
has  sowed,  in  the  heart  of  Peter  and  of  his  suc- 

*Hist.  Mil.,  chapt.  13.  f  ^pusc.  cont.  Guibert. 

X  Thomass.  i,  441.  g  Com.  in  Evang.  Sti.  Lucae. 


TESTrMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.       91 

cessors,  the  seed  of  faith."  ^' Hahes  reconcUta 
fidei  semina.^' 

Euthy rains,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
who  lived  during  the  reign  of  Alexius  Com- 
nenus,  indorses  the  same  views,  in  his  Commen- 
taries on  the  Gospels,  when  he  calls  the  Holy 
Father  '^  the  teacher  appointed  by  Christ  to  read 
to  the  whole  world  lessons  of  infallible  wisdom." 
"  Orbis  viaf/isirumJ^ 

We  have  now  traced  the  testimonies  of  eccle- 
siastical antiquity,  from  the  birth  of  Christianity, 
np  to  the  Pontificate  of  Gregory  YII.  The  po- 
litical Constitution  of  Europe  had,  meanwhile, 
been  radically  changed,  by  a  series  of  convul- 
sions, which  had  completely  overturned  the  fab- 
ric of  the  oldest  States.  England  had  but  lately 
emerged  from  the  bloody  tide  of  a  barbarous 
war.  Yet  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  faith  felt  not 
the  throes  that  convulsed  the  civil  world.  In- 
deed, learning  and  sanctity  never  paid  a  nobler 
tribute  to  the  Holy  See,  than  they  did  through 
the  illustrious  Archbishops  Laxfranc  and  An- 
SELM,  who,  about  this  time,  filled  the  See  of 
Canterbury.  The  former  (flOSO),  calls  an  un- 
bounded docility  and  submission  to  the  Holy 
See,  the  "  Conscience  of  Christianity,"  and 
affirms  that,  tlirough  the  course  of  the  Christian 
era,  no  dogma  was  ever  so  solemnly  proclaimed 


92      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

or  SO  generally  acknowledged,  as  this  very  dogma 
of  the  apostolical  authority  of  the  Pope.  The 
knowledge  thereof  is  infused,  according  to  him, 
into  the  consciences  of  all  the  faithful.  '' Ete- 
nim  omnium  Christianorum  conscientice  inditum 

The  remarks  of  the  learned  prelate  are  appli- 
cable to  our  own  day.  Now,  as  formerly.  Catho- 
lics are  moved,  by  a  certain  instinctive  perception, 
to  accept  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility,  even 
without  the  borrowed  evidence  of  argument. 
Now,  as  formerly,  the  Church  is  guided  by  the 
same  ^^  conscience, ^^  which  can  not  grow  callous 
without  serious  danger  to  Christianity  itself. 
Millions  and  millions,  led  by  the  dictates  of  this 
^^ conscience^ ^  alone,  submit  with  alacrity  to  the 
decisions  of  the  Holy  See,  though  they  have 
never  heard  explicit  proofs,  such  as  we  produce 
in  these  pages.  It  was,  no  doubt,  for  the  same 
reason  that,  even  in  civil  matters,  both  princes 
and  people  formerly  appealed  to  the  arbitration 
of  the  Pope.  Struck  by  the  heavenly  wisdom, 
which  presided  at  the  counsels  of  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  judiciary,  when  he  pronounced  upon 
religious  questions,  the  Christian  community  was 
led  to  refer  to  his  tribunal  also  many  affairs  of 

*Lanf.  Contr.  Bereng. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOT.Y   FATHERS.       93 

state.  And  no  doubt,  as  Voltaire  himself  admits, 
society  at  large  would  be  mucli  happier,  if  the 
diiferences,  which  sometimes  occur  between  sov- 
ereigns and  their  subjects,  were  adjusted  bv  an 
appeal  to  the  common  father  of  the  faithful,  in- 
stead of  being  settled  at  the  point  of  the  sword. 
Anselm,  the  illustrious  successor  of  Lanfranc 
in  the  See  of  Canterbury,  when  on  his  way  to  in- 
voke the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  against  King 
William  the  Red,  spoke  in  the  following  terms 
to  an  assembly  of  Bishops :  "  I  am  going  to  the 
chief  Pastor,  to  the  angel  of  the  great  Council, 
to  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  on  whom  the  Church 
is  built,  and  to  whom  Christ  gave  the  keys  of 
Heaven.  Hence  you  may  all  know  that,  in  those 
things  which  relate  to  God,  I  shall  ever  yield  a 
ready  obedience  to  the  Pope."  ''Quare  cundi 
noveritis,  quod  in  his,  quce  Dei  sunt,  vicario  Petri 
obedient ia m  impenda m." 

The  same  author  dedicates  his  work  against 
the  heretic  Rosselin  to  "  the  Holy  Father,  whom 
the  Lord  has  appointed  the  guardian  of  the 
faith." 

Among  those  of  Gregory's  contemporaries  who 
used  their  learning  in  the  defense  of  the  Apos- 
tolical authority  of  the  Holy  See,  special  mention 
is  due  to  Leo  of  Chartres,  Bruno  of  Asti,  God- 
fried  of  Yendome,  Guido  the  Carthusian,  Otto 


94      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

of  Bamberg,  Adelbert  of  Mayence,  Humbert, 
Archbishop  of  Lyons,  and  Rupert  of  Deutz. 
We  shall  leave  it  to  the  last  of  these  witnesses 
to  interpret  the  meaning  of  all,  in  his  book, 
"Z>6  divino  officio/^  which  contains  this  remark- 
able sentence:  "The  Roman  Church,  solidly 
built  upon  the  rock  of  Apostolical  faith,  has 
remained  firm,  has  silenced  the  heretics,  not  of 
Greece  only,  but  of  the  whole  world,  and,  with 
supreme  authority,  has  pronounced  its  irrevocable 
sentence  from  the  tribunal  of  faith."  ^'Bomana 
Ecdesia,  super  Apostolicce  fidei  petram  altius  fun- 
data,  firmiter  stetit,  et  tarn  Grcecice  quam  totius 
orbis  hcereticos  semper  confutavit,  et  de  excelso  fidei 
tribuTiali,  data  sententia,  Judicavit.''  She  is  to  all 
the  faithful,  who  have  recourse  to  her,  a  wall  of 
defense  emblazoned  with  the  thousand  trophies 
of  her  former  victories. 

We  have  a  still  more  illustrious  witness  in  the 
Prussian  Bishop,  Anselm  of  Havelberg,  whom 
the  Emperor  Lolhau  dis])atched  to  Constantino- 
ple, to  recall  the  schismatical  Bishops  to  a  sense 
of  their  duty.  The  imperial  envoy  strongly 
urged  his  case  in  an  address,  in  which  he  said  to 
the  erring  Greeks:  "The  Roman  Church  is 
privileged  beyond  all  others;  for,  whilst  the 
Churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and 
Constantinople  wavered  in  faith,  she  alone,  that 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS.      95 

was  built  on  the  rock,  always  stood  firm — ilia 
supra  petram  fundata  semper  maiisit  inconcussa — 
because  the  Lord  had  prayed  for  Peter,  that  his 
faith  might  not  fail.  Hence,  the  injunction, 
*  confirm  thy  brethren/  which,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  rest  of  the  text,  was  evidently  de- 
signed to  mean :  Do  thou,  who  hast  received  the 
grace  of  remaining  steadfast  in  the  faith,  act  to- 
ward all  the  others  as  a  shepherd,  a  teacher,  a 
father,  a  master,  gently  rebuking  and  strengthen- 
ing them  whenever  they  waver. ^'  "^c  si  aperie 
ei  dicat:  Tuy  qui  hanc  gratiam  accepistl,  uty  aliis 
in  fide  vacillantibiiSj  semper  in  fide  immobiUs  per- 
maneas,  alios  vacillantes  cojifinna  et  corrige,  tam- 
quam  omnium  pastor,  et  doctor  et  pater  et  magister 
omnium.''^ 

Then,  reviewing  the  Annals  of  the  Church, 
he  produced  incontestable  evidence  to  prove  that 
all  heresies  have  been  suppressed  by  the  authority 
of  the  Holy  See,  which  crushed  their  authors 
with  the  rock  of  faith — ^^  a  pjetra  fideiper  Petrum 
destructosJ'  From  these  data  he  inferred  that 
the  Roman  See  enjoys  two  remarl^able  privileges, 
namely,  untainted  purity  of  faith,  and  supreme 
judicial  authority  over  all  the  faithful.  ''Free 
07nnibus  incorruptam  puritatem  fidei  et  supra 
07)i7ies  potestatem  judicandi." 

He  put  his  arguments  in  so  pointed  a  form  as 


96       TESTIMONY   OF  THE   HOLY   FATHEES. 

to  silence  the  captious  Greeks.  Oh,  that  he  could 
rise  from  the  grave  to  direct  his  powerful  logic 
agaiust  his  own  countrymen,  of  whom  the  ma- 
jority have  imitated  the  renegade  Greeks  in  their 
defection!  Full  three  centuries  have  already 
elapsed  since  the  sun  of  faith  set  upon  the  laud 
which  gave  birth  to  this  ardent  champion  of  the 
Church.  A  gradual  return  to  his  teachings  and 
maxims  looks  to  us  like  the  harbinger  of  another 
dawn,  that  will  dispel  the  shades  of  heresy  and, 
once  more,  bathe  those  regions  of  error  in  the 
glorious  sunlight  of  faith.  May  the  auspicious 
moment  be  no  longer  delayed  ! 

We  shall  close  this  long  list  of  Catholic  tra- 
dition, embracing  a  period  of  a  thousand  years, 
with  the  testimony  of  St.  Bernard.  Superior 
to  human  respect,  that  constitutional  disease  of 
weak  minds,  the  illustrious  Doctor  dared  to  speak 
as  he  thought,  not  only  to  humble  monks  and 
common  laymen,  but  also  to  mitred  prelates  and 
sceptered  princes.  His  letter  to  Innocent  III 
shows  us  how  well  he  could  blend  an  ingeiujous 
freedom  with  a  respectful  veneration.  "  It  is 
but  proper,'^  writes  he,  "to  advise  the  Holy 
Father  of  every  scandal  which  disgraces  the 
Church,  and  of  every  danger  which  threatens 
the  faith ;  because  it  is  natural  to  look  for  an  an- 
tidote, against  the  fatal  poison  of  heresy,  in  that 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    HOLY    FATHEES.       97 

See,  whose  faith  is  not  liable  to  defection.  Xow, 
this  is  the  special  pi'eros:ative  of  the  Roman  See; 
for,  to  whom  but  Peter  was  it  ever  said  :  ^  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fliil  not/  "  ''Dig- 
num  namque  arbifror  ibi  potlssimum  reparari 
damna  Jidei,  ubi  non  pos.^if  fides  ^entire,  defectum. 
Hcec  quidem  jyrcei'ogatka  hujiis  Sedis ;  cid  enim 
dictum  est  alteri :  ^rogavi  pro  te  id  non  deficiat 
fides  tua.' "  *'  Thou  canst  give  us  no  clearer  proof 
that  thou  art  the  legitimatesuccessor  of  St.  Peter, 
whose  chair  thou  fillest,  than  by  using  thy  au- 
thority to  strengthen  wavering  minds  in  thy 
fiith." 

The  Holy  Doctor  uses  similar  expressions  in 
his  131st  letter  on  Abelard.  But  nowhere  does 
he  define  the  pi^rogatives  and  the  true  character 
of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  with  so  much  accuracy, 
as  in  his  book  of  considerations,  compiled  espe- 
cially for  Pope  Eugenius  II,  who  had  been  his 
disciple.  As  if  admonishing  the  Holy  Father,  the 
Saint  proposes  the  question  :  "  Who  art  thou  ?  ^' 
Then,  with  that  comprehensiveness  of  thought 
which  •  sometimes  compresses  into  the  narrow 
compass  of  a  few  sentences,  more  solid  instruc- 
tion than  is  scattered  through  the  voluminous 
tomes  of  inferior  authors,  the  Saint  himself 
replies :  "  Thou  art  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  the 
head  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  the  prince  of 
9 


98       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY   FATHERS. 

Bishops,  the  heir  of  the  Apostles.  Thou  art  like 
Abel  in  thy  primacy,  like  Noah  in  thy  govern- 
ment, like  Abraham  in  the  patriarchate,  like 
Melchisedech  in  thy  priestly  character,  like  Aaron 
in  thy  dignity,  like  Peter  in  thy  power,  like 
Christ  in  thy  unction.  The  other  Bishops  are 
indeed  shepherds,  each  having  charge  of  a  par- 
ticular portion  of  the  fold ;  but  thou  art  the  only 
one,  who  feeds  the  entire  fold  of  Christ."  "  Tibi 
universi  crediti  uni  unaj^  "For  thou  art  the 
Shepherd  of  the  shepherds  themselves.  To  which 
of  the  Bishops,  or  even  of  the  Apostles,  has  the 
whole  flock  been  intrusted  ?  What  flock  ?  For- 
sooth the  inhabitants  of  one  particular  city  or 
district?  No,  but  all  the  children  of  the  Church. 
Our  Lord  Himself  has  said  :  ^  Feed  my  sheep.' 
James,  who  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  pillars  of 
the  Church,  contented  himself  with  the  province 
of  Jerusalem  and  left  the  universal  Church  to 
Peter.  If  the  ^  brother  of  the  Lord '  thus  bowed 
to  higher  authority,  ^vho  will  dai-e  to  arrogate  to 
himself  the  prerogatives  of  Peter?"  "  Cedenie 
Domini  fratre,  quis  alter  se  ingerat  Petri  proe- 
rogativcef^^  "Others  possess  a  partial  author- 
ity, thou  the  plenitude  of  power.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  others  is  confined  within  definite  limits, 
thy  jurisdiction  extends  over  all.  Thine  is  the 
indefeasible   title  acquired  by    St.   Peter   when 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   HOLY    FATHERS.       99 

Christ  delivered  to  him  the  Keys  of  Heaven, 
and  intrusted  liim  with  the  care  of  His  flock/' 
^'Stat  ergo  inconcussiun  privilegiuin  tuum,  tarn  in 
datis  clavibus,  quam  in  ovibus  commendatis.''^ 

Though  these  passages  were  designed  by  the 
Saint  to  furnish  his  illustrious  disciple  with  mat- 
ter for  reflection,  they  read  like  a  summary  of  all 
that  Christianity,  living  on  through  the  vicissitudes 
of  times  and  places,  had  previously  asserted,  in  the 
face  of  friends  and  foes,  of  laymen  and  clerics ;  and 
thus  we  have  given  a  condensed  bird's-eye  view 
of  the  faithful  convictions  of  the  Holy  Fathers 
and  the  eminent  writers  of  the  patristic  age,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  more  than  eleven  hundred  years. 

Indeed,  it  would  be  a  difficult  task,  to  find  a 
single  dogma  of  Catholic  belief,  upon  which  an- 
tiquity ha.s  pronounced  so  decisively,  as  U2)on  the 
infallible  apostolical  power  of  the  Sovereign  Pon- 
tiff, when  teaching  or  defining  matters  of  faith. 
Laufranc  was  right  when  he  styled  this  belief  the 
conscience  of  Christianity,  that  is,  of  the  Church. 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  Church  herself,  repre- 
sented by  her  Bishops,  has  recognized,  in  all  her 
General  Councils,  this  exalted  prerogative  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff. 


III. 


TESTIMONY  OF  ALL  THE  GENERAL 
COUNCILS  OF  THE  EAST  AND  WEST, 

DECLARING  THE   JUDGMENT   OF  THE   CHAIR  OF   ST.  PETER  AT 
ROME  TO  BE  THE  INFALLIBLE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 


If,  upon  a  question  of  so  much  interest  to  the 
true  believer,  it  is  satisfactory  to  learn  the  pri- 
vate opinions  of  individual  Fathers,  it  must  be 
doubly  so  to  know  the  formal  declarations  made 
by  the  Universal  Church  in  her  General  Councils. 
Not  unfrequently  protected  by  the  secular  arm, 
the  Bishops  were  at  full  liberty  to  discuss  the 
question  of  this  prerogative  so  vitally  connected 
with  the  integrity  of  faith.  Had  they  been  of 
opinion,  that  the  right  of  defining  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  resides  in  the  body  of  the  Episcopacy, 
no  time  would  have  been  more  favorable  for  assert- 
(100) 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      101 

ing  their  claims  than  that  of  a  General  Council, 
when  tlieir  whole  order  was  gathered  together,  from 
all  quarters  of  tlie  globe,  and,  without  fear  of  in- 
timidation, could  canvass  the  subject  in  all  its  bear- 
ings. Nay,  I  will  say  further,  that,  upon  a  point  of 
such  importance,  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to  re- 
sist any  encroachment,  even  though  the  oifeuder 
were  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  himself.  For,  if  they 
looked  upon  themselves  as  the  guardians  of  the 
faith,  they  could  not,  without  a  serious  dereliction 
of  duty,  surrender  a  ])rinciple,  which  all  par- 
ties must  allow  to  be  of  vital  inq^ortance.  Now, 
the  history  of  the  General  Councils,  far  from 
sup})orting,  directly  refutes  any  such  assumption, 
on  the  part  of  the  assembled  Bishops.  First,  no 
General  Council  was  ever  considered  lawful,  un- 
less convoked  by  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

Secondly,  the  Acts  of  the  General  Councils 
had  no  binding  force,  unless  confirmed  by  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  See. 

Thirdly,  whenever  the  Popes  convened  a  Gen- 
eral Council,  with  the  view  of  settling  a  dispute 
in  matters  of  doctrine,  they  usually  anticipated 
all  aqtion  on  the  part  of  the  Fathers,  by  a  defini- 
tion, which  was  to  control  the  deliberations  of 
rthe  assembly.  If  they  sought  the  cooperation 
of  the  General  Councils,  it  was  solely  because,  in 
matters  of  faith,  the  dogma  promulgated  with  so 


102      TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN.  COUNCILS. 

mucli  solemnity,  before  delegates  from  every 
portion  of  the  Christian  world,  was  likely  to 
be  sooner  made  known  to  every  member  of  the 
fold ;  while,  in  matters  of  discipline,  such  a  con- 
vocation of  Church  dignitaries  could  not  but 
prove  highly  sakitary  to  the  clergy,  as  well  as 
to  the  laymen  under  their  jurisdiction. 

Fourthly,  no  ecclesiastical  writer,  how  enthu- 
siastic soever  in  his  devotion  to  the  Pope,  ever 
pronounced  himself  more  decidedly  and  clearly 
in  favor  of  the  Infallibility  of  the  Holy  See,  in 
matters  of  faith,  than  did  the  Fathers,  who  com- 
posed the  General  Councils.  Even  the  Greeks, 
despite  that  hereditary  jealousy  which  was  in- 
cessantly contending  for  the  boasted  rights  of 
Constantinople,  did  homage  to  this  prerogative 
of  Rome.  Let  us,  then,  carefully  study  the  pro- 
ceedings and  enactments  of  the  General  Councils. 

THE  APOSTOLICAL  COUNCIL. 
AT  JERUSALEM. 

Though,  strictly  speaking,  the  assembly  held 
at  Jerusalem,  under  the  auspices  of  St.  Peter,  is 
not  entitled  to  the  name  of  a  General  Council, 
nevertheless,  because  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
convened,  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  and  because 
it  has  served  as  the  model  of  the  General  Coun- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS,      103 

oils,  it  may,  with  some  propriety,  find  a  place  in 
thase  pages. 

We  shall  not,  therefore,  apologize  to  our  read- 
ers for  entertaining  them,  a  few  minutes,  with  the 
transactions  of  the  early  Church. 

We  know  from  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  related  to  the  observance  of  the 
Mosaic  Law  by  the  converted  Gentiles;  that 
Peter,  Paul,  James,  and  Barnabas,  together  with 
a  number  of  elders  from  the  Church  of  Jerusa- 
lem, assembled  to  deliberate  u^wn  the  subject; 
and,  finally,  that  a  warm  discussion  arose  among 
them.  And  here  we  may  be  allowed  to  remark, 
in  passing,  that  so  long  as  a  question  has  not  yet 
been  decided,  the  same  freedom  of  debate  is  still 
allowed,  not  merely  in  a  General  Council,  but 
also  in  every  Diocesan  Synod.  Here,  then,  is  a 
striking  resemblance  between  ancient  and  modern 
Councils;  but  it  is  not,  by  any  means,  the  only 
one  nor  the  most  important,  as  must  be  evident 
to  every  person,  who  knows  any  thing  about  the 
sequel  to  the  proceedings  briefly  referred  to 
above.  We  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
that,  "when  there  was  much  disputing"  Peter, 
rising  up,  pronounced  his  judgment,  while  all 
'^  the  multitude  held  their  peace."  The  question 
was  settled ;  and  James,  who,  as  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, rose  next  to  submit  some  disciplinary  re- 


104      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

marks,   humbly  acquiesced   in   the   decision    of 
Peter. 

Thus  the  very  first  synod,  held  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  Apostles  themselves,  foreshadowed 
the  Councils  of  succeeding  ages.  Peter  still  de- 
cides, by  the  mouth  of  his  successors ;  and  all  the 
Bishops,  no  less  than  the  other  children  of  the 
Church,  submit  with  the  same  becoming  docility 
as  James,  "  the  brother  of  the  Lord.^^ 


I.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OP 

NICE. 

The  first  General  Council  at  Nice,  intended  to 
give  greater  publicity  to  the  condemnation  of 
Arius,  was  convoked  by  Pope  Sylvester,  under 
the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great,  who  used  his 
imjierial  authority  to  facilitate  the  meeting  of  the 
Fathers.*  The  Sovereign  PontilBP  presided  by 
his  three  legates,  one  of  whom  was  Osius,  Bishop 
Cordova.  The  other  two  were  priests.  Osius, 
whom  Athanasius  styles  the  Leader  of  the 
Council,  occupied  the  first  place,  attended  by  his 
two  companions.     How  great  the  deference  here 

*  See  Sozomenus  L  i,  c.  16.  Act.  i,  Cone.  Chalc.  et  Act. 
xviii,  Cone.  Constant.  III. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  CX)UNCILS.      105 

shown  to  the  Papal  authority,  since  the  raere  re- 
flection of  it  gave  even  simple  priests  the  prece- 
dence to  Bishops,  who,  on  the  present  occasion, 
were  either  Orientals  or  Greeks,  and  yet  never 
objected  to  this  conduct  of  the  legates,  as  imply- 
ing an  undue  assumption  of  power.  This  fact 
alone  suffices  to  show,  that  the  prerogatives  of 
the  Holy  See  were  then  acknowledged  all  over 
the  Christian  world.  No  one,  therefore,  will  be 
at  all  startled  by  the  flict,  that,  even  previous  to 
any  measures  taken  by  the  Councils,  the  legates, 
acting  under  instructions,  condemned  the  bhis- 
phemous  doctrines  of  Arius.  The  Fathers  were 
guided,  in  their  deliberations,  by  these  instruc- 
tions, as  well  as  by  the  symbol  of  faith  prescribed 
by  Sylvester  and  brought  from  Rome,  together 
with  a  number  of  disciplinary  regulations.  At 
the  close  of  the  Council  all  the  Acts  were  sent  to 
Rome  for  confirmation.  This  circumstance,  in 
particular,  was  referred  to  by  Pope  Felix  III, 
when  he  said  to  the  Clergy  and  Monks  of  the 
East :  "  The  three  hundred  and  eighteen  Fathers 
assembled  at  Nice,  mindful  of  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  ^  Thou  art  Peter ' — "  Obsequentes  voei  Domi- 
ni, '  tu  es  Petvus^ — transmitted  all  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  to  the  Roman  Church  for  con- 
firmation." 

Pope  Gelasius,  the  successor  of  Felix,  reminds 


106      TESTIMONY  OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

the  Bishop  of  Dardania,  that,  as  every  Christian 
should  know,  the  Acts  of  a  Council  do  not  bind 
in  conscience,  unless  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See. 
"  As  that,  which  the  Roman  See  did  not  sanction, 
could  not  lay  the  faithful  under  any  obligation, 
so  that,  which  she  judged  right,  was  at  once  re- 
ceived by  the  whole  Church."  ^^  Stout  quod  Ro- 
mana  8edes  non  jprohaverat,  stare  non  j^otuit ;  sicy 
quod  ilia  censuit  judicare,  tota  Ecclesia  suscepit.^^ 
The  decision  lies  exclusively  in  the  power  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  Those  enactments  only,  which 
she  has  confirmed,  hold  valid;  those,  which  she 
has  rejected,  are  without  binding  force.  "  Totum 
in  Sedis  Apostolicce  positum  est  potestate.  HoCy 
quod  confirmavit  in  Synodo  Sedes  Apostolica,  hoc 
robur  obtinet,  quod  rejutavit,  habere  non  potuit 
firmitatem.''^ 

Such  were  the  comments,  passed  by  the  Popes, 
when  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  were  still 
fresh  in  the  memory  of  all. 

A  yet  more  cogent  proof  is  furnished  us  by 
the  very  Acts  of  the  Council  itself.  The  eight- 
eenth Canon  rules,  that,  the  Church,  faithful  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Apostles,  has  reserved  all 
cases  of  importance  to  the  arbitration  of  the 
Holy  See.  "  Oujus  dispositioni  omnes  majores 
causas  antlqua  Apostolorum  auctoritas  reserva- 
vit."     Can  there  be  any  case  of  greater  impor- 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.       107 

tance — ^^ major  causa" — than  a  question  about 
matters  of  faith? 

The    twenty-ninth    canon    reads    as    follows: 
"The  incumbent  of  the  Eoman  See,  acting  as 
Christ's  Vicegerent,  in  the  government  of  the 
Church,  is  the  head  of  the  Patriarchs,  as  well  as 
Peter  himself  was.''     "  Illcj  qui  tenet  sedem  Bo- 
manam,  caput  est  omnium  Patriarcharum   sicut 
Petrus,  ut  qui  sit  Vicarius  Christi  super  cunctam 
Ecdesiam"     The  words,  "  as  well  as  Peter  him- 
self,'' point  to  tlie  marked  difference  that  exists 
between  tlie  Roman  l^ontitf,  as  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  and  the  Bishops,  as  the  successors  of 
the  other  Ai)ostles.     Common  Bishops  are  not 
identified  with  the  Apostles,  whose  Apostolate, 
being  vested  in  their  person,  was  not  transmitted 
to  their  succ^essors.     But  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is 
completely  identified  with  Peter,  whose  preroga- 
tives and  primatial  dignity,  being  attached  to  the 
office,  descend,  as  if  by  inheritance,  to  his  last 
successor.     In  the  other  Apostles  the  dignity  of 
the  Apostolate,  together  with  its  consequent  in- 
fallibility, was  of  a  personal  character ;  in  Peter 
it  was  the  inalienable  privilege  of  his  office.     It 
is  for  this  reason,  that  the  Roman  See  alone  has 
been  always  known  as  the  Apostolical  See. 
Why  did  not  the  Episcopal  Sees  of  Antioch,  Ephe- 
sus,  Corinth,  Jerusalem,  and  Alexandria,  all  of 


108      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

which  were  founded  by  Apostles,  lay  claim  to  the 
same  title  ?  If,  then,  the  Roman  See  has  a  right 
to  the  distinctive  appellation  given  her,  from  the 
first  ages  of  the  Christian  era,  it  must  be  because 
the  prerogative  of  Apostolical  authority  is  in- 
separable from  the  office  of  Peter,  and,  therefore, 
enjoyed  by  each  successive  Pope.  Even  the  ar- 
rogant and  jealous  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople, 
never  daring  to  claim  this  title  for  their  See,  ren- 
der testimony  to  the  right  in  question. 

A  parallel  train  of  reasoning,  founded  upon 
the  name  "Vicar  of  Christ,^'  wliich  the  Council 
of  Nice  applies  to  the  Holy  Father,  will  lead  us 
to  the  same  results.  For  this  title  would  be  al- 
together inapplicable  to  him,  could  he  err  when 
solemnly  defining  an  article  of  faith.  Think  of 
Christ,  the  infallible  founder  of  the  Church,  be- 
come fallible  in  the  person  whom  He  has  chosen 
to  represent  Him  on  earth ;  think  of  His  unerr- 
ing oracles  converted  into  doubtful  opinions  by 
the  organ  which  He  uses  to  communicate  them 
to  men!  The  inconsistency  is  apparent.  We 
infer,  therefore,  that  the  expressions  Peter  him- 
self. Apostolical  See,  and  Vicar  of  Christ 
are  significant  appellations,  suggested  by  the 
conscience  of  Christianity,  to  mark  the  plenitude 
of  Apostolical  authority  centered  in  the  Sover- 
eign Pontiff. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      109 

Pope  Boniface  I  felt  the  force  of  this  conclu- 
sion when,  shortly  after  the  Council  of  Nice, 
be  remarked  to  the  Bishops  of  Thessalonica : 
"  The  Fathers  of  the  Council  did  not  presume 
to  legislate  concerning  the  Roman  See,  because 
they  saw  that  the  Lord  has  conferred  the  pleni- 
tude of  power  upon  her.''  "  Adeo  ut  non  aliquid 
ansa  sit  super  earn  constituere,  cum  videret  nihil 
super  meritum  suum  posse  conferri.  Omnia  de- 
nique  huic  noverat  Domini  scrmone  concessa.^' 

The  Pope  was,  no  doubt,  warranted  in  this 
inference.  In  fact  there  could  scarcely  be  any 
thing  more  complete  or  comprehensive  than  the 
testimony  of  the  First  General  Council  concern- 
ing the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See.  It  covers 
the  whole  question,  which  we  have  endeavored 
to  prove  in  these  pages. 


11.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

CONSTANTINOPLE. 

This  Council  was,  at  first,  nothing  more  than 
a  provincial  Synod,  and  if  it  now  holds  a  high- 
er rank,  that  distinction,  as  the  ingenious  Ger- 
bert  remarks,  is  altogether  due  to  the  authority 
of  the   Popes,  who   confirmed   its   Canons.     It 


110      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

was  convened  by  Damasus,  to  check  more  ef- 
fectually the  intrigues  of  the  heretics  Sabellius, 
Macedonius,  Eunomius,  and  Apollinaris,  against 
whom  he  had  already  pronounced  the  censures 
of  the  Church. 

Bossuet  assigns  this  as  the  object  of  the  Coun- 
cil, on  the  authority  of  Sozomenus,  who  relates 
that  the  controversies  then  agitating  the  East 
appeared  to  have  been  settled  by  the  rescript  of 
Damasus.  "  Quo  facto,  utpote  judicio  Romance 
Ecdesice  controversia  terminata,  quievere — et  finem 
accepisse  visa  est.'^ 

Yet,  as  the  heresiarchs  persisted  in  troubling 
the  peace  of  the  Church,  the  Sovereign  Pontiff 
determined  to  promulgate  their  condemnation 
in  a  more  solemn  manner.  Accordingly  the 
Council  met,  not  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the 
subject,  but  solely  to  cooperate  with  him  toward 
the  total  suppression  of  this  heretical  movement. 

The  same  point  is  proven  by  Baronlus,  who 
cites  some  very  ancient  codices,  preserved  in  the 
Vatican  Library  and  elsewhere.* 

The  reasons,  which  moved  the  Pope  to  sum- 
mon the  Council,  also  weighed  with  the  Oriental 
Bishops.  Headed  by  Basil,  the  Primate  of  Cap- 
padocia,  they  addressed  Damasus  in  a  letter,  to 

♦Baron,  ad  ann.  381,  N.  19. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      Ill 

which  we  have  had  occasion  to  alhide  above,  and 
in  which  they  exj^ress  the  desire  to  see  the  Papal 
rescript  promulgated  in  all  the  Churches  of  the 
East.  "  Omnibm  Orientls  Eccleslis  publicari  et 
manifestari  petimiis."  Why  should  they  have  so 
strongly  urged  the  Pope  to  issue  a  public  rescript, 
if  they  had  not  felt,  with  the  Church  at  large, 
that  it  would  produce  the  desired  eifect?  Nor 
was  there  a  feigned  submission,  but  an  earnest 
conviction,  which  led  to  practical  results.  Even 
after  organizing  in  Council,  they  did  not  regard 
themselves  as  a  sovereign  ecclesiastical  tribunal, 
but  as  a  judicial  body  amenable  to  the  Vicar  of 
Christ.  Hence  the  deferential  language  in  which 
they  petitioned  him  to  confirm  the  disciplinary 
canons  which  they  had  made,  and  to  anathema- 
tize a  certain  Timotheus,  who  had  learned  her- 
esy in  the  school  of  Apollinaris.  The  Pope, 
while  commending  their  submission,  reminds 
them  that,  by  acquitting  themselves  of  what 
was  a  strict  obligation,  they  have  but  furthered 
their  own  interests,  since,  without  the  sanction 
of  the  Holy  See,  all  their  proceedings  would  re- 
main null  and  void.  "  Quod  debitam  sedi  Apos- 
toIiccB  reverentiam  exhibet  caritas  vestra  vobis  ipsis 
plurimum  prcestatisJ^ 

He  rejected  their  disciplinary  canons  of  the 
Council,  which  were,  accordingly,  without  force, 


112     TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

as  we  learn  from  a  brief  of  Gregory  the  Great 
to  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch, 
and  to  Cyriacus,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

After  remaining,  for  a  long  time,  in  a  state  of 
suspense,  they  were  finally  approved,  under  cer- 
tain restrictions,  by  Innocent,  in  the  thirteenth 
century.  But  those  acts,  which  were  not  con- 
firmed by  the  Holy  See,  were  never  considered 
as  binding  in  foro  conscientice,  nor  reckoned 
among:  the  decrees  of  General  Councils. 

The  other  petition  was  doomed  to  a  similar 
fate.  The  Pope  saw  no  necessity  of  issuing  a 
special  bull,  condemnatory  of  Timotheus,  be- 
cause, as  he  remarked,  the  whole  ground  was 
covered  by  the  formulary  previously  sent,  by  the 
Holy  See,  to  the  Council.  "Jam  enim  semel 
formulam  dedimus,  ut  qui  se  Christianum  profite- 
atur,  illud  servet — quid  ergo  Timothei  damna- 
tionem  denuo  a  me  quceritisV^ 


HI.    GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

EPHESUS. 

When  Nestorius  began  to  disseminate  his  her- 
esies, Pope  Coelestin,  who  then  governed  the 
Church,  immediately  issued  a  bull  of  excom- 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      113 

munication,  which  was  to  take  effect  ten  days 
after  being  received.  If,  within  that  time,  which 
was  allowed  him  for  reflection,  he  would  not  sign 
a  public  recantation  of  his  errors,  he  was  declared 
depased  from  his  See,  and  Cyril,  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  was  authorized  to  proceed  against 
him,  according  to  the  directions  of  the  Pope. 
*^  Aperte  hanc  scias  nostram  sententiam  ut  nisi 
....  intra  decimum  diem  aperta  et  scripta  con- 
fessione  damnaveris^  ab  universalis  Ecclesice  Catho- 
liccB  communione  te  scias  dejedum."^ 

Besides  the  rescript  which  was  {passed  on  Xes- 
torius  himself,  the  Pope  sent  an  official  commu- 
nication to  the  principal  Bishops  of  the  East,  as 
well  as  a  Pastoral  to  all  the  Clergy  and  people  of 
Constantinople.  By  these  measures,  the  Holy 
Father  virtually  declared  himself  independent  of 
a  General  Council.  And,  if  he  sanctioned  the 
meeting  of  the  Fathers  at  Ephesus,  it  was  with 
the  view  of  breaking  the  obstinacy  of  the  heresi- 
arch,  and  of  counteracting  the  influence  of  the 
Emperor,  who  was  supposed  to  favor  the  new 
errors.  That  this  was  the  object  of  Coelestin  is 
apparent  from  his  instructions  to  his  legates : 
"We  command  you,''  said  he  to  them,  "to 
maintain    the    dignity   of  the   Apostolical    See. 


»Hard.  i,  1299. 


114      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

When,  therefore,  any  discussion  arises,  you 
shall  pass  sentence  on  the  opinions  advanced, 
but  not  enter  the  lists  as  disputants."  ^'Ad  dis- 
ceptionem  si  ventum  fuerity  Vos  de  eorem  sententia 
judicare  debetis,  non  suhire  certamen.^^  At  the 
same  time  he  informed  the  Fathers  of  the  Coun- 
cil, that  he  had  charged  his  legates  to  execute, 
without  adding  or  retrenching,  what  he  himself 
had  previously  decided  — "  ut  quce  a  nobis  antea 
statuta  sunt  exequantur ''  —  and  he  forbade  the 
assembly  to  depart,  in  ought,  from  the  instruc- 
tion, which  he  had  given  to  his  representatives. 
When  the  legates  had  read  this  communica- 
tion, the  entire  Council  indorsed  the  Papal 
claims,  with  the  words :  "  From  the  earliest 
ages  of  the  Church  it  has  always  been  held  as 
indubitable,  that  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  the 
pillar  of  truth,  the  foundation-stone  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  Peter,  who  received  the  Keys 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  always  lives  in  his 
successors  and  pronounces  his  judgment  by  their 
lips."  ''Qui  ad  hoc  usque  tempus  et  semper  in 
suis  successoribus  vivit  et  Judicium  exercet."  Ac- 
cordingly the  Fathers  favored  and  promulgated 
the  condemnation  of  Xestorius  ;  and,  when  sub- 
sequently they  notified  the  Emperor  of  the  re- 
sult, they  offered,  as  an  explanation  of  their  con- 
duct, that  they  had  acted  conformably  to  the  in- 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      115 

structions  of  the  Pope,  whose  previous  decision 
had  compelled  them  to  take  this  course.  The 
Council,  therefore,  justified  its  proceedings  by 
the  authority  of  the  Pope,  while  the  Pope  rested 
wholly  upon  the  absolute  power  vested  in  his 
own  person. 

During  one  of  the  sessions,  Theodore,  Bishop 
of  Ancyra,  exclaimed,  in  the  name  of  the  As- 
sembly :  "  The  Lord  of  the  Universe  has  sig- 
nified, by  the  letters  of  Coelestin,  that  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation,  promulgated  by  the 
Synod,  is  just.''  *'Ju.stam  esse  Synodi  sententiam 
demofUftranit  universorum  Deus,  per  literas  Ce- 
kstini.^^ 

Finally,  in  a  letter,  which  the  Fathers  ad- 
dressed to  the  Pope,  to  ask  his  confirmation  of 
the  Synodical  Decrees,  they  stated  that  they  had 
followed,  with  scrupulous  fidelity,  the  instruc- 
tions which  they  had  received. 

It  need  not  surprise  us,  then,  that  Genadius, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  speaks  of  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  Council  as  "  dictated  by  Coelestin,'' 
while  Pope  Sixtus,  the  successor  of  Ccelestin, 
writes  to  John,  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  :  "  You 
may  infer,  from  the  transactions  of  the  Council 
at  Ephesus,  what  is  meant  by  conforming  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  Holy  See.  St.  Peter  has 
transmitted  to  his  successors,  the  power  received 


116      TESTIMONY  OP  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

from  Christ."     ^'  B.  Petrus  in  suis  successoribtis 
quod  accepU  hoc  tradidif 

The  fact  is  so  patent,  that,  down  to  our  days, 
the  liturgical  books  of  the  Russian  Church,  at- 
tribute the  extinction  of  the  Nestorian  schism 
to  Pope  Coelestin,  and  not  to  the  Council  at 
Ephesus.* 

IV.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

CHALCEDON. 

We  have  compared  the  testimony  of  the  Gene- 
ral Councils  to  the  light  of  the  rising  sun.  The 
Council  of  Chalcedon  furnishes  us  with  a  strik- 
ing illustration,  inasmuch  as  it  establishes,  more 
clearly  than  all  the  preceding  Councils,  the  au- 
thority and  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  See. 

Intelligence  having  reached  Rome  concerning 
the  outrages  committed  by  Dionysius,  in  the  Con^ 
venticle  of  Ephesus,  and  the  machinations  resorted 
to  by  Eutyches,  Leo  the  Great,  acceding  to  the  in- 
stances of  the  Emperor  Marcian  and  of  the  Em- 
press Pulcheria,  convoked  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon. The  motive  which  induced  the  Sover- 
eigns to  urge  their  request,  is  clearly  stated  by 

♦  See  Harduin  I,  1299;   Nicephorus  XIV,  34;   Hard.  I,  1503; 
Conoil.  torn.  3,  p.  126;  and  Maistre  du  Pape,  i,  91. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      117 

the  Emperor,  iu  his  letter  to  the  Pope.  As 
though  he  were  guarding  against  all  possibility 
of  misconstruction,  he  makes  the  remarkable  as- 
sertion, that  when  soliciting  the  convocation  of 
a  Council,  he  would  not  be  understood  as  ask- 
ing for  a  new  ordinance  or  definition,  but  simply 
for  a  more  speedy  promulgation  and  enforcement 
of  the  one  already  made  by  the  Pope,  whose 
utterances  must  be  received  by  the  faithful  as 
though  he  were  Peter  himself.  "  Tanquam  ab 
ipso  bcdlissirno  Petro  cuperet  declarari" 

The  letters  of  Pulcheria  breathe  the  same 
spirit  of  submission.  The  Po})e,  yielding  to 
these  considerations,  at  length  issued  a  bull  for 
the  convocation  of  the  Council,  with  the  formal 
salvo,  "  that  the  dignity  and  rights  of  the  See  of 
Peter  remain  unimpaired."  '^ Petri  Apostoli  sedis 
jure  et  hon(yre  servato.''  Six  hundred  and  thirty 
Bishops  answered  the  summons.  Paschasius, 
the  Papal  legate,  opened  the  Council  and  de- 
clared, in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  that  Dionysius, 
having  held  a  Synod  without  the  sanction  of 
the  Holy  See,  had  forfeited  his  claims  to  a  seat 
in  the  assembly.  The  intruder  was  accordingly 
ejected  and  forbidden  a  place  among  the  Fathers. 
The  Council  entered  into  session  headed  by  the 
legate,  who  strictly  enforced  the  instructions 
given  by  the  Pope,  in  his  letter  on  Eutyches. 


118      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

After  some  preliminary  consultation,  a  profes- 
sion of  faith  was  drawn  up,  which,  though  not 
couched  in  the  same  terms  as  the  one  sent  by 
the  Pope  to  Eutyches,  was  yet  an  accurate 
compendium  of  Catholic  doctrine.  After  the 
reading  of  this  symbol,  all  the  Fathers  ex- 
claimed, as  with  one  voice :  "  This  formula  re- 
commends itself  to  the  Council;  this  was  the 
faith  of  our  ancestors ;  anathema  be  he  that  be- 
lieves otherwise."  This  sudden  demonstration 
on  the  part  of  the  venerable  body,  was  an  evident 
sign  that  all  favored  the  adoption  of  the  formula. 
Yet  the  Papal  legates  refused  their  assent,  and 
asked  their  dismissory  lettei-s,  with  the  view  of 
returning  at  once  to  the  Pope,  in  whose  for- 
mulary they  would  not  allow  even  a  jot  to  be 
changed. 

This  step,  on  the  part  of  the  Papal  representa- 
tives, reversed  the  decision  of  the  Fathers,  who 
now  exclaimed :  ^'  What  Leo  believes  we  all  be- 
lieve; anathema  be  he  who  believes  any  thing 
else.  Peter  has  spoken  through  Leo.''  "  Ut  Leo 
credimus;  anathema  ei^qui  non  ita  credit.  Petrus 
per  Leonem  loeutus  estJ^ 

Acropius,  the  Bishop  of  Sebastopol,  remarked  : 
"  His  Holiness,  the  Pope,  has  sent  us  a  formula ; 
we  are  bound  to  follow  it,  and  to  subscribe  to  its 
requirements.''     The  Holy  Synod,  taking  up  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN.  CX)irNCILS.      119 

speaker's  words,  pursued:    "That   is  what  we 
wanted  ;  no  better  exposition  can  be  made." 

The  synodical  letter,  in  which  the  Fathers  peti- 
tion the  Pope  to  confirm  the  acts  of  the  Council, 
acknowledges  the  same  supreme  authority  in  the 
following  passage :  "  We  have  a  rock  of  refuge 
in  Peter,  who  alone  possesses  the  absolute  right 
of  deciding,  in  the  place  of  God ;  because  he 
alone  lias  the  keys  of  Heaven.  All  his  defini- 
tions, therefore,  bind  as  emanating  from  the  Vice- 
gerent of  Christ."  ''  Habemns  Pefnim  petram 
rcfiigii,  et  ijm  soli,  libera  poteslate,  loco  Dei  sit 
jiLS  disc4^mendi,  secinidum  dares  a  Deo  sibi  datas, 
el  omnia  ab  ipso  definita  teneantur  tanqaam  a  Vi- 
cario  Apostolici  ihronU' 

The -condemnation  and  deposition  of  Diosco- 
nis  having  been  published  in  full  Council,  was 
received,  by  all,  with  the  words :  "  He  that  is  the 
foundation-stone  of  the  faith  has  divested  him 
of  his  episcopal  dignits\  Leo,  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  has  but  reechoed  the  sentence  of  the  Bles- 
sed Peter.  Whosoever  does  not  abide  by  the  in- 
structions of  his  Holiness  is  a  heretic."'  ^'Hic 
qui  est  rectce  fidei  fundamentum,  nudavit  eum  epis- 
copali  dignitate.^^'^ 

In  memory  of  the  illustrious  Pontiff  who  so 
strenuously  guarded  the  prerogatives  of  Peter, 

*Act.  Cone,  iv,  Sess. 


120      TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN.  COUNCILS. 

the  Eussian  Church  still  retains,  in  its  Liturgy, 
a  hymn  beginning  with  the  words  :  ''  How  shall 
I  extol  thee,  O  Leo,  heir  of  the  invincible 
rock?"* 

V.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

CONSTANTINOPLE. 

Pope  Yigilius,  yielding  to  the  solicitations  of 
the  Emperor  Justinian,  who  professed  a  special 
regard  for  his  august  person,  had  consented  to 
visit  the  Eastern  Capital.  Yet  the  intimacy  of 
hospitality  could  not  make  him  shrink  from  the 
performance  of  his  duty.  From  the  very  mo- 
ment of  his  arrival  he  censured  the  arrogant  as- 
sumptions of  a  recent  imperial  edict,  and  showed 
himself  determined  not  to  surrender  the  rights 
of  the  Holy"  See.  This  resoluteness  incensed 
Justinian,  who  sought  to  revenge  himself  by 
casting  his  illustrious  guest  into  prison.  Yigili- 
us, unruffled  by  the  occurrence,  remarked  to  the 
assembled  dignitaries  of  the  empire :  ^'  Remem- 
ber that,  though  you  have  enchained  Yigilius, 
you  can  not  enchain  Peter.  The  fear  of  man 
shall  never  induce  me  to  prove  unfaithful  to  the 
duties  of  my  charge."     The  Yicar  of  Christ  had 

*  De  Maistre  i,  9. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN.  COUNCILS.      121 

not  overrated  his  courage.  The  civil  authorities 
resorted  to  violence,  and  Vigilius,  aided  by  the 
people,  sought  refuge  in  the  Church  of  St.  Sophia, 
at  Chalcedon.  Yet,  even  from  this  asylum,  he 
issued  a  document  on  the  questions  agitated  at 
the  time,  and,  with  Apostolic  authority,  subjoined 
to  every  article  a  solemn  anathema  against  all 
who  would  dare  to  teach  the  errors  condemned. 
Finally,  he  pronounced  null  and  void  whatever 
might  be  done  in  defiance  of  this  ordinance. 
Evidently  Peter  had  not  been  enchained  in  the 
person  of  Vigilius. 

The  Council  assembled,  and  the  Emperor,  as 
wx'll  as  the  Fathers,  invited  the  Pope  to  preside 
in  [)erson.  But  Vigilius,  who  wished  to  show 
the  Eastern  Church  in  particular,  that  the  Sov- 
ereign Pontiff,  when  alone,  is  invested  with  the 
plenitude  of  Ajwstolical  power,  as  well  as  when 
presiding  over  the  assembled  episcopacy,  declined 
making  his  appearance.  However,  in  order  to 
prevent  all  treachery  on  the  part  of  some  servile 
Bishops  who  might  possibly  be  weak  enough  to 
betray  the  cause  of  the  Church  for  the  favor  of 
tlie  Court,  he  declared  invalid  whatever  the  Synod 
would  enact  in  opiX)sition  to  his  orders.  But  so 
far  were  the  assembled  Prelates  from  setting  the 
Po|>e's  authority  at  defiance,  that  they  followed, 
in  the  minutest  particulars,  the  directions  which 


122      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

he  had  given,  and  professed  that  they  received 
liis  letters  upon  matters  of  fiuth  with  as  much 
submission  as  they  did  the  four  Gospels.  ^^Pro- 
fessa  est  Romani  Pontificis  quoad  fidem  epistolas, 
ceque  ac  quatuor  evangelia  suscipere.^'  ^ 

Yet  the  mere  apprehension  of  resistance  threw 
so  much  suspicion  on  the  proceedings  of  the  As- 
sembly, that,  for  a  long  time,  many  portions  of 
the  Catholic  Church  did  not  recognize  it  as  a 
General  Council  at  all.  Until  it  became  gen- 
erally known,  that  the  Acts  of  the  Council  had 
been  confirmed,  the  faithful  acknowledged  no 
other  guide  on  the  questions  then  agitated,  than 
the  Constitutions  of  Vigilius. 

No  more  evident  and  glorious  proof  in  regard 
to  the  Apostolical  authority  of  the  Pope  over  a 
Council  can  be  thought  of,  than  this  deportment 
of  Vigilius,  a  captive  Pontiff,  in  the  presence  of 
an  enraged  Emperor  and  of  a  Council  originally 
composed  only  of  Greek  Bishops.  Indeed  it  was 
a  grand  spectacle  for  the  whole  world,  to  see  the 
Koman  PontiflP  standing  firm  as  a  rock,  amidst 
the  waves  of  persecution,  defying  the  combined 
powder  of  the  Imj^erial  and  E})iscopal  dignity, 
and  finally,  when  free,  without  any  thought  of 
revenge,  confirming  the  decrees  of  the  Council, 

*Greg.  Magn.  Lib.  Ill,  Ep.  37,  Facand  Lib.  II. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.       123 

because  the  Fathers  acted  precisely  according 
to  his  orders.  And  then  only  after  this  his 
confirmation,  the  Council  was  acknowledged 
as  legitimate,  and  ranked  among  tlie  General 
Councils. 

Considering  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  Council  was  convoked,  and,  in  particular, 
the  relations  which  had  hitherto  existed  between 
the  Pope  and  the  Emperor,  the  course  pursued 
by  the  assembled  Fathers  must  be  allowed  to  be 
a  convincing  argument  in  favor  of  the  supreme 
Apostolical  authority  of  the  Pope. 

TI.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

COxXSTANTINOPLE  in. 

This  Council  was  convoked  by  Pope  Agatho, 
at  the  request  of  Coustantine  the' Bearded. "  The 
Papal  legates  were  charged  to  allow^  of  no  addi- 
tion, subtraction  or  alteration  in  the  dogmatical  de- 
cisions of  his  Holiness,  but  to  require  the  Council 
to  promulgate,  without  reservation,  the  traditions 
of  the  Roman  See.  "  Xihil  profido  prcesumant 
augere,  minuere  vel  mutare,  sed  traditiones  hujus 
sedk  AjyostoliccB,  ut  a  prcsdecessoribus  ApostoUcis 
Pontificibus  instituta  est,  sinceriter  enarrare." 

Agatho  likewise  asserted  his  Apostolical  au- 


124     TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

thority  in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  whom  he 
reminds  that  the  Church  of  Rome  has  never 
strayed  from  the  path  of  truth  into  the  by-ways 
of  error,  and  that  her  decisions  have  always  been 
received  as  a  rule  of  faith,  not  merely  by  indi- 
viduals, but  also  by  the  Councils.  ^^Hmc  Apostoli- 
ca  ecdesia  nunquam  a  via  veritatis  in  qualibet  erro- 
ris  parte  deflexa  est.''  This  is  the  rule  of  true  faith. 
^'  licec  est  verce  ficlei  regulaJ'  Alluding  to  the 
words,  ''  Confirm  thy  brethren,"  the  Pontiff  re- 
marks that  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  have  always 
strengthened  the  Church  in  the  truth.  Hence 
he  infers  that  "all  bishops,  priests  and  laics, 
who  wish  to  please  the  God  of  truth,  must  study 
to  conform  to  the  Apostolical  rule  of  the  primi- 
tive faith,  founded  on  the  rock  Peter,  and  pre- , 
served  by  him  from  error.'' 

In  his  letter  to  the  Council  he  alludes  to  the 
instructions  given  to  his  legates,  and  cautions 
the  Fathers  not  to  regard  the  questions  brought 
before  them  as  open  to  debate.  He  informs 
them,  that  they  are  required  to  embrace,  in  a 
compendious  definition,  the  several  articles  which 
he  has  already  pronounced  certain  and  immu- 
table, and  then  to  promulgate  the  decision  all 
over  the  world.  "  Non  tamen  tamquam  de  incertis 
contendere,  sed  ut  eerta  et  immutabilia  compendiosa 
dejinitione  profcrre,  simpMciter  observantes,  ut  hwG 


TESTBIONY,  OF   THE   GEX.  COUNCILS.      125 

eadcm  ah  omnibus  prcedicari,  atque  apud  omnes 
obtineri  jubeatis.^- 

Here,  then,  is  an  instance  of  the  policy,  which, 
from  the  earliest  times,  the  Holy  See  invariably 
observed  toward  the  Councils  of  the  East.  Be- 
fore the  Assembly  went  into  session,  the  Pope 
had  already  pronounced  upon  the  point  in  ques- 
tion and  transmitted  his  decision  as  a  ride  of 
faith,  from  which  no  one  was  allowed  to  deviate 
even  a  hair's  breadth.  The  duty  that  devolved 
upon  the  Council,  was  not  so  much  to  define  the 
truth,  as  to  communicate  it,  in  the  most  ex{)edi- 
tious  manner,  to  the  more  distant  provinces  of 
the  Christian  world.  It  was  on  the  present 
occasion,  that  the  Fathers  used  the  words,  to 
which  we  had  occasion  to  allude  above.  "It 
seemed  to  us  paper  and  ink ;  but  Peter  has  spoken 
by  the  mouth  of  Agatho."  "  Charta  et  atramentum 
videhatur,  et  per  Agathonnn  Petrm  loquebatur.'^ 

Demetrius,  Bishop  of  Persias,  gave  expression 
to  the  sentiments  of  the  Council,  in  the  memora- 
ble words :  "  I  receive  the  instructions  of  Agatho 
as  dictated  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  the  Blessed  Peter,  the  prince  of  the 
Apostles.^'  "  Tamqiiam  a  Sjnritu  Sando  didata, 
per  OS  beatissimi  Petri,  principis  Apostohrurn  ex 
digito  prcedidi  beatissimi  Pajxe  AgathonisJ^  This 
remark  expresses  the  sentiments  of  all  the  Fa- 


126      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

thers.  For,  in  their  address  to  the  Emperor, 
they  spoke  of  the  letters  of  the  Pope  as  written 
under  an  inspiration  from  heaven;  and,  in  a 
communication  to  Agatho  himself,  they  declared 
that  they  left  the  whole  matter,  under  considera- 
tion, in  the  hands  of  him,  who  stood  unmoved 
upon  the  solid  rock  of  faith.  "  Itaque  tibi,  quid 
gerendum  sity  relinquimus  stanti  supra  firmam 
fidei  petram.^^ 

Finally,  they  once  more  declared,  that  they 
would  abide,  in  all  things,  by  the  decisions  of 
Siricius,  which  they  regarded  as  ^^Apostolical 
and  divine  oracles  ^^  with  which  they  had  crushed 
the  growing  heresy.  "  Qiias  ut  a  smnmo  Apos- 
tolorum  vertice  divinitus  prcescriptas  agnovimuSj 
per  quas  exortam  nuper  multiplicis  en^oris  hcereti- 
cam  sedam  depulimusJ^ 

These  words  of  the  Fathers  were  reechoed  by 
the  Emperor  himself,  who  wrote  to  the  Pope : 
"We  all  received  your  dogmatical  letters  with 
open  arms,  and  thought  that  we  had,  when  re- 
ceiving them,  the  pleasure  of  embracing  Peter 
himself,  when  he  confessed  the  Divinity  of 
Christ." 

Sending  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  around 
through  the  empire,  he  did  not  send  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Council,  but  of  Agatho,  as  decisions 
and  decrees  of  the  Apostolical  See. 


TESTIMONY   OP   THE   GEK.  OOtTNCTtS.      127 


Yll.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

NICiEA  11. 

This  Council  having  been  convoked  to  oppose 
an  effectual  barrier  to  the  outrage  of  the  Icono- 
clasts by  Adrian  I,  the  Pope,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  his  predecessors,  decided  previously  the 
dogmatical  question.  He  sent  this  his  decision  in 
two  letters  to  the  East.  The  one  directed  to  the 
Emperor  and  the  Empress;  the  other  directed  to 
the  Patriarch  Tarasius. 

He  required  his  definitions  to  be  received  as  a 
RULE  OF  FAiTir,  becausc  he  filled  the  chair  of 
Peter,  who  transmitte<l  the  authority  he  had 
received  from  Christ  to  all  succeeding  Popes. 
'^Quibus  aucforitatis  pofcstatem,  quemadmodum  a 
Domino  ei  eoiicessum  ed,  et  ipse  quoque  contulit  ae 
tradidit  divino  jure  successor ibics  Fontificibus." 

Hence,  he  infers  that  the  other  Churches  are 
indebted  for  all  sound  doctrine  to  the  Holy  See, 
which  guards  the  deposit  of  faith.  "jEc  eacccterce 
ecclesice  fidei  documenta  sumpserunt.'^ 

At  the  opening  of  the  Council  the  Papal  leg- 
ates put  this  simple  question :  "  Does  Tarasius, 
does  the  Council  concur  in  the  decision  of  his 
Holiness   or   not?"     ^^ Diced   nobis   Patriarcha 


128      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   C4EN.  COUNCILS. 

Tarasms,  dicat  nobis  sancta  Synodus^  d  consen- 
tiat  Uteris  sanctissimi  Papce  senioris  Romce,  an 
non  f ''  They  assigned  as  a  cause  for  -  this  sum- 
mary proceeding,  that  "  neither  reason  nor  faith 
would  permit  the  raising  of  any  doubt  upon  a 
question  that  had  already  been  irrevocably  de- 
cided.^' ^^Quia  de  irrefcn^nabili  judicio  quwri  nee 
ratio  nee  fides  pemiittitJ^  All  the  Fathers  re- 
plied :  "  We  follow,  accept,  and  acquiesce."  "  Se- 
quimuVf  admittimus  et  consentimus.^' 

The  necessity  of  this,  their  declaration,  is  con- 
firmed by  their  remarkable  subscription  to  the 
Acts  of  the  Council. 

The  majority  of  them  subscribed  with  John  of 
Ephesus,  in  these  words:  "With  the  grace  of 
Christ  our  Lord,  the  true  God,  I  believe  and 
profess  whatever  is  contained  in  the  letters  of  his 
Holiness  the  Pope  of  Rome.  My  faith  is  that 
of  Pope  Adrian.  With  this  faith  I  wish  to  ap- 
pear before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ.  '* 

John,  the  Bishop  of  Taurimania,  made  his 
profession  in  the  following  words :  "  Whereas 
the  letters  sent  by  Adrian,  are  the  embodiment 
of  divine  truth,  I  believe  and  confess."  "  Cum 
velut  divince  orthodoxice  terminus  sunt  litercey  qucje 
ab  Hadriano  missce  sunt,  2)rofiteorJ^ 

Tarasius  himself,  writing  to  Adrian  in  the 
name  of  the  Council,  styles  the  Papal  instruc- 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      129 

tions  "  Divine  oracles  " — "  Deiloquas  doctrinas  " 
— and  he  attributes  this  sacred  character  to  the 
Apostolical  authority  of  the  Holy  See.  "  Cathe- 
dram  Apostoli  Petri  sortita  est  Sanctitas  VestraJ^ 


VIII.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

CONSTANTINOPLE  IV. 

This  Council,  whose  object  was  to  check  the 
audacity  of  the  refractory  Photius,  was  convened 
by  Pope  Adrian  II.  He  was  zealously  seconded 
by  the  Emperor  Basil,  who,  by  request  of  the 
Pope,  exerted  his  influence  to  gather  the  prelates 
of  the  Christian  world  into  the  great  Eastern 
Capital.  The  letter  addressed  by  the  Pope  to 
the  Emperor  was  read  during  the  first  session  of 
the  Council.  It  required  the  Fathers,  under  the 
severest  censures,  to  consign  to  the  flames,  in 
full  Council,  all  the  papers  of  the  cabal  held  by 
Photius,  and  to  obliterate  so  completely  every 
vestige  of  its  infamous  proceedings,  that  not  even 
a  letter  might  remain  at  the  close  of  the  meeting. 
"  Nee  superesse  apud  quemllbet  vel  unum  jota  vel 
unum  apioem,  nisi  forte  quis  totius  clerieatus,  imo 
tot  i  us  7iominis  Christiani  dignitate  car  ere  volue- 


130      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

The  Pope  declared  that  every  one  who  would 
refuse  to  do  so  Avould  lose  at  once,  "  ipso  fado/^ 
every  degree  of  clerical  dignity — nay,  even  the 
claim  to  be  called  a  Christian. 

Having  faithfully  executed  the  order,  all  the 
Fathers  exclaimed,  as  with  one  voice :  "  Blessed 
be  the  Lord,  who  has  deigned  to  accept  some  sat- 
isfaction for  your  Holiness." 

Adrian  likewise  sent  to  Constantinople  a  docu- 
ment, entitled  "  Libellus/^  which  was  made  the 
test  of  orthodoxy.  Without  subscribing  to  its 
teachings,  no  one  who  had  fallen  into  the  new 
errors  could  hope  for  reconciliation  with  the 
Church  and  the  Holy  See.  This  Papal  document 
teaches  us  that  the  first  requisite  for  salvation  is 
a  strict  adherence  to  the  rules  of  true  faith. 
^^  Prima  salus  est,  rectce  fidei  regulam  eustodireJ^ 
What  this  rule  is,  the  Pope  himself  informs  us 
•when  he  writes:  ^'Our  Lord  said  to  Simon: 
Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  Church."  History  furnishes  abundant  evi- 
dence that  this  promise  has  not  been  void,  be- 
cause the  faith  of  the  Holy  See  has  never  been 
infected  with  error.  ^' Hcec,  quce  dicta  sunt,  re- 
rum  probantur  effectibus,  quia  in  sede  Apostolica 
imiimculata  est  sempjer  Catholica  servata  religio  et 
sancta  celebrafa  doctrinal' 

All  the  Fathers  of  the  Council   attested  in 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      131 

writing,  that,  by  following  the  decrees  and  de- 
cisions of  the  Holy  Pope  Adrian,  they  hoped  to 
abide  in  the  communion  of  that  Church,  which  is 
the  repository  of  true  Christian  faith.  The  for- 
mula of  their  profession  reads  thus :  "  In  the  pres- 
ence of  the  undersigned  witnesses,  I,  N.  N.,  Bisliop 
of  N.,  have  affixed  my  signature  to  the  profession 
of  my  faith  drawn  up  by  the  Blessed  Adrian,  our 
Sovereign  Pontiff  and  Pope.''  ^^  Ego,  N.  N., 
Episcopus  N.J  hu'w  irrofessionis  meet  lihelloj  facto 
a  me  in  bcatissimo  Hadriano  smnmo  Pontifice  et 
umvcrsali  Papa,  subscripsiy  et  testes  qui  subscrip- 
senmt,  rogavi.'^ 

AVe  consider  the  subscription  of  this  formula 
of  Pope  Adrian,  by  the  Fatliers  of  this  General 
Council,  as  the  clearest  and  most  succinct  illus- 
tration of  the  mystical  union  of  the  members  of 
the  Church,  with  their  Head,  through  faith. 
The  Fathers  confess  that  they  believe  not  as  re- 
posing on  a  vital  element  of  faith,  hidden  in  their 
own  mind,  but  as  believing  by  that  vital  element 
by  which  the  Head  of  the  Church  is  believing, 
and  from  whose  fliith  the  life  and  integrity  of 
faith  for  all  the  members  of  the  Church  emanate. 

During  the  second  session  all  the  bishops,  who 
had  been  implicated  in  the  Photian  schism,  after 
subscribing  to  tlie  formula  of  Adrian,  were  again 
interrogated,  whether  they  had  heard  the  ^'Id- 


132      TESTniONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

hellus^^  read  and  were  ready  to  submit  to  its 
decisions.  They  all  exclaimed :  "  We  accept  your 
judgment  as  that  of  the  Son  of  God."  ^^ Judici- 
um vestrum  tanquam  ex  persona  filii  Dei  habemusj^ 

In  the  third  session  a  letter  was  read,  written 
by  the  Pope  to  Ignatius,  in  which  the  decisions 
of  the  Holy  See  are  called  irrevocable. 

Ignatius  himself  wrote,  in  a  similar  manner, 
to  Pope  Nicholas.  His  letter,  which  was  read 
during  the  third  session  of  the  Council,  con- 
tains such  expressions  as  the  following:  "For 
the  ailments  of  the  body  there  are  many  phy- 
sicians; but  for  the  wounds  of  the  soul  there  is 
but  one,  the  Bishop  of  Home."  "  Unum  et  sin- 
gularem  prceceUentem  atque  Catholicissimum  me- 
dicum  ipse — solus  ex  toto  magister  Deus  omnium 
produxit — videlicet  tuam  fraternam  sanctitatemy 
"As  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  have  inherited 
his  privileges,  they  have  always  signalized  them- 
selves by  rooting  out  the  tares  of  heresy." 
^'Eradicatores  et  peremptores  malorum  zizaniorum 
in  exortis  h(jeresihus  et  ptrcevaricationihus.''^ 

The  Fathers  of  the  Council  also  aver  that 
they  consider  Nicholas,  as  well  as  his  successor 
Adrian,  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
^'Ita'que  beatissimum  Papam  Nicolaum,  nee  non  et 
sanctissimum  Hadrianum  Papam  successoreiiij  or- 
ganum  Spiritus  Sancti  habentes. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      133 

They,  as  well  as  Ignatius  and  the  Emperor, 
petitioned  the  Pope  to  recognize  the  validity  of 
the  orders  administered  by  the  intruded  Patri- 
arch. But  in  vain.  Adrian  briefly  replied: 
"iVo/i  est  in  nobis:  Est  et  non  est.^^  "Our  deci- 
sion is  irrevocable;  we  can  not  contradict  our- 
selves.'' 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  first  eight  Q^cumeni- 
cal  Councils  held  in  the  East,  such  the  lanu-uaire, 
in  which  they  speak  of  the  Supreme  and  Infal- 
lible Authority  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  his 
decisions.  The  weight  drawn  from  the  acts  of 
these  first  eight  (Ecumenical  Councils  can  not 
be  overrated.  They  were  Councils  held  in  the 
East  where  the  Episcopacy  was  protected  by  the 
imperial  power.  These  Councils,  moreover,  were 
composed,  for  the  majority,  by  eastern  patri- 
archs, primates,  and  bishops,  who  from  the  very 
foundation  of  Constantinople  as  the  new  resi- 
dence of  the  emperors  of  the  East,  looked  upon 
the  Western  Church  wdth  so  great  jealousy. 
Nevertheless  they  bowed  with  such  unbounded 
reverence  and  submission  to  the  decrees  and  or- 
ders of  Rome,  extolling,  in  yet  more  emphatical 
terms,  its  authority,  than  the  Popes  themselves 
did.  It  is  truly  lamentable  that  the  arrogance 
and  pride,  so  deeply  ingrained  in  the  patriarchs  of 
Constantinople,  finally  involved  this  once  fairest 


134      TESTIMONY   OP  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

portion  of  Christianity  in  so  fatal  and  fanatical 
a  schism.  Still  even  now,  all  vestiges  of  that 
filial  devotion  to  the  Holy  See  have  not  yet  quite 
disappeared. 

IX.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LATERAN  I. 

This  Council  was  convoked  by  Calixtus  II, 
for  the  purpose  of  setting  at  rest  the  vexed  ques- 
tion of  Investitures.  The  thousand  bishops  who 
answered  his  summons,  did  not  deliberate  in  pub- 
lic sessions,  upon  the  steps  to  be  taken,  but,  by 
fasting  and  prayer,  invoked  the  light  of  Heaven 
upon  the  Holy  Father,  who  was  meanwhile  mak- 
ing out  his  final  sentence. 

Like  the  Fathers  of  the  preceding  Councils, 
they  considered  him  the  "organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;"  so  that,  when  he  had  once  given  his 
decision  they  regarded  the  poiut  as  settled.  Ac- 
cordingly the  agreement,  which  was  entered  into 
between  the  Emperor  and  the  Sovereign  Pontiff, 
was  appropriately  called  the  "Pactum  Calixti- 
nim'^ — "Compact  of  Calixtus" — and  not  the 
"  Compact  of  the  Lateran  Council."  The  Em- 
peror yielded  and  took  the  following  oath : 
"For   the   love   of  God,   of  the   Holy  Roman 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      135 

Church,  and  of  the  Pope,  as  well  as  for  the 
good  of  my  soul,  I,  Henry,  renouuoe  all  claim 
to  the  right  of  Investiture.'^ 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  remind  our  readers, 
that  these  occurrences  l)elong  to  a  j)eriod,  during 
which  the  faithful  were  wont  to  look  up  to  the 
Popes,  as  the  arbiters,  who  decided  upon  even 
the  temporal  destinies  of  Christian  nations. 

It  does  not  belong  to  our  thesis  to  enter  upon 
a  discussion,  by  what  riglit  the  Popes  actcil  in 
that  manner,  but  we  only  remark,  that  evidently 
the  venemtion,  with  which  all  the  Christian 
world  looked  upon  the  Roman  Pontiff  as  the 
highest  and  supreme  judge  in  matters  of  laith 
and  morals,  inclined  them  almost  irresistibly  to 
submit  also  to  his  arbitration  the  temporal  affairs 
of  princes  and  peoples. 

X.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LATERAN  U. 

This  Council,  convoked  by  Innocent  II,  was 
attended  by  about  one  thousand  bishops.  Its 
objects  were  the  extinction  of  the  schism  headed 
by  the  famous  Peter  Leo,  the  condemnation  of 
the  heresies  broached  by  Peter  of  Bruis,  and  the 
eradication  of  divers  abuses,  which   the  remiss- 


136      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

ness  of  some  prelates  had  allowed  to  creep  into 
the  provinces  under  their  jurisdiction. 

The  Pope,  in  this  Council,  exercised  his  su- 
preme judicial  authority  over  the  assembled 
Episcopacy  in,  we  may  say,  a  palpable  manner. 
Innocent,  after  calling  by  name  those  Archbish- 
ops and  Bishops  whom  he  considered  guilty,  first 
severely  rebuked  them  for  their  faults,  and  then, 
with  his  own  hand,  stripped  them  of  their  Epis- 
copal insignia. 

The  Council  then  was  held,  but  all  the  Canons 
enacted  in  that  Council  were  not  promulgated  in 
the  name  of  the  Council,  but  in  that  of  the  Pope, 
as  it  may  be  seen  from  the  very  preamble.  "  In- 
nocentius  II  in  Condlio  Lateranensi  secundo.'* 
^'Innocent  in  the  Second  Council  of  Lateran." 
This  was  also  the  case  in  regard  to  all  other 
General  Councils,  when  the  Holy  Father  was 
personally  presiding  over  them.  This  manner  of 
promulgating  the  Acts,  Decrees,  and  Ordinations 
of  a  General  Council  when  the  Pope  in  person 
presided,  shows  very  powerfully  in  whose  au- 
thority the  whole  legislative  character  of  the 
Council  itself  was  vested.  If  the  announced 
General  Council  takes  place  next  year,  we  have 
no  doubt,  that  its  enactments  also  will  be  pro- 
mulgated under  tlie  heading :  Pius  IX  in  the 
Council  of  the  Vatican. 


N 
TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN.  (X)TTNCILS.      137 


XI,   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LATER  AN  III. 

The  Eleventh  General  Council  assembled,  under 
an  order  from  Alexander  III,  to  suppress  the 
schism  commenced  by  the  apostate  Octavian,  to 
quell  the  disturbances  excited  by  the  Albigenses, 
and  to  correct  sundry  abuses,  which  had  found 
their  way  into  the  sanctuary. 

The  Canons,  promulgated  by  this  Council, 
were  all  of  a  disciplinar}-  character.  The  Fathers 
did  not  even  consider  it  advisable  to  comdemn 
the  heresies  of  the  Albigenses,  because,  after  the 
decision  given  by  the  S<^)vereign  Pontiff  previous 
to  the  convocation,  they  regarded  any  further 
action  as  supertiuous.  Besides,  the  Pope,  in  the 
Council  itself,  exercised  his  Apostolical  authority 
as  the  supreme  judge  in  matters  of  faith  in  a 
most  conspicuous  manner,  because,  when  Peter 
Lombard,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  was  charged  with 
teaching  that,  as  man,  Christ  was  a  mere  mythi- 
cal personage,  Alexander,  without  so  much  as 
consulting  the  Fathers  upon  the  measures  to  be 
taken,  summarily  condemned  the  error,  and,  in  a 
letter  to  William,  the  Archbishop  of  Sens,  directed 
the  Bishops  of  France  how  to  act. 
12 


138      TESTIMONY  OF  THE   GEN.  COTJNCILS. 

The  submission  of  the  French  Church,  which 
regarded  these  Papal  decisions  as  infallible,  found 
its  fullest  expression  in  the  memorable  words  of 
Walter  of  St.  Victor.  "  Let  those  troublesome 
quibblers,  stricken  by  the  thunderbolts  of  an 
Apostolical  definition,  cease  croaking.'^  "  Qu  Hh 
cessent  de  crodsserj  ces  importdns  sophists,  atterrSs 
qu  His  sont  par  le  tonnerre  d  'une  definition  apos- 
tolique" 

XII.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LATERAN  IV. 

This  Council,  convoked  by  order  of  Innocent  III, 
in  the  year  1215,  gathered  together  no  less  than 
twelve  hundred  and  eighty-five  prelates,  of  whom 
seventy-one  were  Archbishops,  four  hundred  and 
twelve  Bishops,  and  over  eight  hundred  Abbots. 
The  Patriarchs  of  Jerusalem  and  Constantinople, 
as  well  as  the  Maronite  Archbishop,  who  had 
lately  been  reconciled  to  the  Church,  assisted  in 
person,  together  with  a  number  of  embassadors 
from  various  European  courts.  The  Patriarchs 
of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  sent  their  delegates 
to  represent  them  in  the  Council,  and  to  ask  for 
reconciliation  with  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  Pope  in  the  Council  prescribed  the  pro- 


TESTTMOXY  OF  THE   GEX.  COUNCILS.      139 

fession  of  faith.  During  the  proceedings  of  the 
Connci]  he  CGDSured  a  work  of  the  Abbot  Joa- 
chim, but  spared  its  author,  who  had  previously 
made  a  written  declaration  to  abide  by  the  de- 
cision of  the  Holy  See. 

The  fifth  Canon  of  the  Council  pronounced  the 
Church  of  Rome  "the  mother  and  teacher  of  all 
other  Churches."  "  Utpote  univcrsomim  Christifi- 
delium  mater  et  magisfra.^'  All  decrees  of  the 
Council  were  promulgated  in  his  name. 


XIII.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LYONS  I. 

The  XIII  General  Council,  held  by  order 
of  Innocent  IV,  in  the  year  1245,  was  attended 
by  the  Emperor  Baldwin  himself,  as  well  as  by 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  During  it  the 
Pope  pronounced  judgment  against  the  Emperor 
Frederic,  who  had  rendered  himself  guilty  of 
flagrant  injustice.  We  have  repeatedly  remarked, 
that  the  authority  formerly  exercised  in  temporal 
affairs,  by  the  successors  of  St.  Peter,  was  due  to 
that "  Conscience  of  Christianity,'^  which  regarded 
them  as  supreme  Judges  in  spiritual  matters.  The 
Pope  himself,  acting  in  his  capacity  of  Supreme 


140      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

Judge  and  Euler  of  the  Council,  pronounced  his 
sentence  after  hearing  the  advice  of  the  assem- 
bled Fathers.  All  the  Canons  of  the  Council  ap- 
peared under  the  heading,  ^'Innocentius  in  Con- 
Gilio  Lugdunensij^  etc.  "  Innocent,  in  the  Council 
at  Lyons." 

XIV.    GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

LYONS   XL 

This  Council  was  assembled  by  Gregory  X, 
in  the  year  1274,  to  solemnize  the  reunion  of 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches.  The  Em- 
peror Michael,  of  Constantinople,  as  well  as  all 
the  other  European  Sovereigns,  were  duly  repre- 
sented. Even  the  Great  Khan  of  Tartary  had 
sent  a  delegation. 

The  conditions,  on  which  the  schismatical 
Greeks  would  be  re-admitted  to  the  communion 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  had  been  previously 
fixed  by  Gregory  X  and  Clement  IV. 

As  soon  as  Michael  had  been  raised  to  the 
imperial  throne,  he  dispatched  embassadors  to 
Rome,  with  the  view  of  effecting  a  reunion  be- 
tween the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  Clement 
IV,  who  then  filled  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  and 
following  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessors,  sent 
to  Constantinople  a  symbol  of  faith — ^^Libellum 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      141 

professionis  Jidel "  —  to  which  the  Emi^cror  and 
all  those  who  wished  their  reconciliation  with 
the  Church  were  required  to  subscribe.  This 
symbol  of  faith  embodied  several  articles  of  be- 
lief never  before  defined,  and  yet  it  allowed  of 
no  discussion  or  change.  *'Kon  autem  ad  prcc- 
didce  discws.sionan  vel  novam  dcfijutionem  fidei.^^ 
In  thus  drawing  up  a  formula  for  the  profes- 
sion of  faith,  Gregory  and  Clement  exercised  a 
prerogative,  which  by  itself  settles  our  whole 
thesis,  and  which  the  whole  theological  school, 
in  common  with  St.  Thomas  of  xVquin,  who 
was  then  living,  have  always  recognized  in  the 
Yicar  of  Christ. 

The  Emperor  and  all  the  members  of  the 
Greek  Clergy  signed  this  symbol  and  sent  em- 
bassadors, who  stated  that  they  had  come  to 
make  a  public  profession  of  the  faith  taught  by 
the  Roman  See,  and  promised  to  yield  perfect 
obedience  to  its  decisions. 

The  Pope  declared  in  his  letter  to  the  Em- 
peror, that  a  General  Council  should  solemnize 
this  act  of  reunion  of  the  Eastern  Churches  with 
the  true  Church  of  God,  but  not  to  discuss  any 
farther  the  matters  already  defined  by  Him. 
"iVo?!  aufem  ad  prcEdidce  discussionem  vel  novam 
dejinitionem  fideiy  * 

*  Cone.  torn,  ii,  p.  946. 


142      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

In  the  fourth  session  the  profession  of  faith, 
which  bore  the  signatures  of  the  Emperor  and 
of  the  Principal  Oriental  Bishops,  was  publicly 
read.  The  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  the  secular 
authorities  of  the  Empire  thereby  acknowledged 
that  the  Roman  Pontiff  has  inherited  from  St. 
Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  rights  of 
the  primacy  together  with  the  plenitude  of  Apos- 
tolical power,  and  that,  therefore,  all  questions, 
which  touch  upon  the  doctrines  of  faith,  must  be 
settled  by  the  decision  of  the  Holy  See.  "  Quern 
primatum  se  ab  ipso  Domino  in  beato  Petro  Ajjos- 
tolorum  principey  sive  vertices  cujus  Romanus  Pon- 
tifex  est  successor  J  cum  plenitudine  poteskdis  re- 
cepisse  veraciter  et  humiliter  recognovit.  Sic  et  si 
quae  de  fide  subortce  fuerint  quoestioneSy  suo  debent 
judicio  definiriJ^ 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  ceremony  of  recon- 
ciliation, the  Pope  entoned  the  "  Te  Deum  ;  " 
and  immediately  those  present,  joined  in  the 
swelling  chorus,  amid  tears  of  joy.* 

XV.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

VIENNE. 

The  XY  General  Council,  which  various  he- 
retical movements  and  a  relaxation  of  ecclesias- 

*Raynal(i  ad  ann.  1212,  Cone.  torn,  ii,  p.  957. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  GEN,  COUNCTLS.      143 

tical  discipline  had  rendered  veiy  desirable,  was 
convoked,  in  the  year  1311,  hy  Clement  V. 

In  his  encyclical,  he  reminded  the  faithful  of 
the  authority  vested  in  the  Roman  Pontiff,  whom 
the  Lord  has  intrusted  with  the  government  of 
all  the  Churches,  in  order  that  those  who  have 
been  regenerated  in  the  baptismal  font,  may  in- 
sure their  salvation  by  adhering  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Holy  See,  and  guard  against  the  fate  of 
such  as  stray  from  the  path  of  sound  doctrine. 
^^Sane  Romana  Ecdesia,  mater  alma  jldeJium,  ca~ 
jmt  est  disponeivte  Domino  Ucclesianim  omnium  et 
magistraj  a  qua,  velut  afonte  primitivo,  ad  sin- 
gukis  alias  ejusdem  fidei  rivuli  derivantu}^ — ad 
cujus  regimen  voluit  ChriMi  dementia  Romanum 
Pontificem  vice  sui  deputare  ministrum,  id  insti- 
tutionem  ipsius  et  dodrinam,  eloquio  veritaiis Evan- 
geliccB  traditam,  cuncti  renati  fonte  boptismatis 
teneant  et  conservent ;  ut,  qui  sub  hac  dodrina 
cursum  vitce  rede  peregerint,  salvi  fiant,  qui  vero 
ab  ea  discesserinty  condemnenturj'  * 

This  formula,  which  gave  the  tone  to  all  the 
proceedings  of  the  Council,  may  be  regarded  as 
a  fair  index  of  the  disposition  with  which  the 
Fathers  assembled.  It  need  not,  then,  be  a  mat- 
ter of  surprise,  that  all  the  Decrees  of  the  Council, 
together  with  the  Ordinations,   Decisions,  and 

*Conc.  torn,  ii,  p.  1539. 


144      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

Decrees  passed  by  the  Pope,  before  and  after  the 
convocation,  subsequently  appeared  in  the  same 
volume  under  the  head  of  "  Clementine  Enact- 
ments.^' "  Clementinje."  It  was  but  the  ap- 
plication of  the  principle,  that  the  regulations  of 
the  Holy  See  are  equally  binding,  whether  made 
IN  or  OUT  OF  a  Council. 

In  the  treatise  "  On  the  Holy  Trinity  and  on 
the  Catholic  Faith''  —  "De  Summa  Trinitate  et 
fide  Catholica" — this  Council  explicitly  states, 
that  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Apostolical  See 
to  pronounce  dogmatically  upon  points  of  faith. 
"Ad  quam  Apostoliece  considerationis  aciem  DUM- 
TAXAT,  hcec  declarare  pertinent,'* 


XVI.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

CONSTANCE. 

This  Council  assembled  in  1414,  with  the  view 
of  suppressing  the  schism  occasioned  by  the  un- 
certainty, in  which  the  election  of  the  new  Pope 
was,  at  that  time,  involved.  The  whole  West- 
ern Church  was  divided  into  antagonistic  parties, 
that  contended,  with  much  ardor,  for  their  re- 
spective nominees. 

This  disagreement,  concerning  the  lawful  head 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS,      145 

of  the  Church,^  introduced  an  element  far  too 
important  to  be  disregarded  in  this  connection. 
Without  due  attention  to  this  fact,  it  is  utterly 
impossible  to  view,  in  the  proper  light,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Council  previous  to  the  day,  on 
which  Pope  Martin  V  was  generally  recognized 
as  the  representative  of  Christ. 

Those  who  deny  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the 
Poj^,  and  advocate  the  suj>erior  authority  of  a 
Council,  are  wont  to  point  to  the  Synod  of  Con- 
stance, because  it  started  from  the  principle  that 
every  one,  '*  even  though  he  bo  a  person  of  Papal 
dignity  " — ^*  etianm  PapullH  ^it  dlynitatis^^ — owes 
obedience  to  the  representatives  of  Christendom 
assembled  to  deliberate  on  the  interests  of  the 
Church.  Such  persons  evidently  forget  that  it 
was  the  object  of  the  Council  to  consider  the 
claims  of  the  Papal  pretenders.  When  once  it 
became  known,  who  was  the  lawful  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  the  Council  assumed  quite  a  different 
tone,  and  acknowledged  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  Holy  See,  in  terms  fully  as  explicit  as  had 
ever  been  used  by  any  previous  Council, 

The  Fathers,  having  taken  up  the  question 
concerning  the  Wickliffites,  did  not  pronounce 
new  ecclesiastic  censures  against  them,  but  con- 
tented themselves  with  reminding  the  faithful, 
that  the  sect  and  its  infamous  doctrines  had  been 
13 


146      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

previously  condemned  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Holy  See.  These  decisions  are  irrefragable,  re- 
marks the  Council,  beeause  it  is  impossible  that 
the  Apostolical  See,  that  is  to  say,  the  Pope, 
should  err.  ^'Impossibile  est,  quod  talis  sedes 
aliquid  determinet  et  teneat  p7'ofide  Catholica  recta, 
quod  non  esset  fides  rectaJ'  For,  if  she  could  err, 
would  she  lay  claim  to  the  name  of  mother  and 
TEACHER  of  all  the  churches?  How  could  she 
presume  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  every 
body,  while  no  one  is  allowed  to  pronounce  judg- 
ment upon  her?  How  could  the  Christian,  who 
refuses  to  abide  by  her  decisions,  incur  the  guilt 
of  infidelity?  "Quomodo  valebit  omnes  judicare, 
de  ea  cmtem  nullus  judicare  permittitur '?  Quo- 
modo  Christianus,  qui  ei  obedire  contemnity  'pec- 
catum  infidelitatis  incurritf" 

That  the  clause  "  etiamsi  Papalis  sit  dignita- 
tis/' had  reference  to  none  but  the  Papal  pre- 
tenders, is  manifest  from  the  declaration  of  the 
Council  itself,  which  ruled,  in  its  fortieth  session, 
that  a  Pope  lawfully  elected  can  not  be  bound 
by  a  Council.  '^  Papa  rite  ac  canonice  electus  a 
Concilio  ligari  nequit.'^  Martin  V  acted  upon 
this  principle,  as  soon  as  his  authority  was  re- 
cognized. While  the  Council  was  still  in  session, 
he  issued  a  Decree,  which  prohibited  all  appeals 
from  the  Holy  See  to  any  other  tribunal.     The 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      147 

Fathers,  so  far  from  taking  offense  at  this  con- 
duct of  the  person,  who  was  indebted  to  them  for 
his  elevation,  readily  sabsoribed  to  the  Decree. 
Allowing  the  Vicar  of  Christ  to  be  amenable  to 
the  Goimcil,  such  an  assumption  on  the  part  of 
Martin  could  never  have  been  allowed  to  pass 
unrebuked,    without    convicting    the    a.ssembled 
Bishops  of  extreme  meanness  and  serious  derelic- 
tion of  duty.     The  words  of  the  bull  were  too 
explicit  to  allow  of  any  misunderstanding.     "  It 
is  not  lawful  for  any  person  to  apjieal  from  the 
Roman  Pontiif,  who  is  the  Supreme  Judge  and 
the  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  or,  by  subterfuge, 
to  elude    his   judgment    in    matters   of    faith.'' 
'^Nemini  fas  est  a  supremo  JiuUce,  sen  Apostolica 
sede,  sen  Romano  Pontificey  Jesu  Christi  Vicano 
in  terrisy  appellare,  aut  illius  Judicium  in  causa 
fidei  decUnareJ'     The  Popes,  certainly  as  soon  as 
the  Fathers  of  a  General  Council  attempted  to 
transgress  their  bounds,  placed  themselves  ahvays 
straight  in  their  way. 

The  enemies  of  Papal  Supremacy  or  Papal 
Infallibility  had,  then,  better  seek  for  more  con- 
vincing arguments,  than  those  afforded  them  by 
the  Council  of  Constance.  Had  the  Pope  re- 
fused to  confirm  the  Decrees  made  by  the  Fathers, 
the  assembly  of  Constance  would  never  have  had 
any  claim  to  the  name  of  a  General  Council. 


148      TESTIMONY  OF  THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

XVII.   GENERAL  COUNCIL 


OF 

FLOEENCE. 


We  now  come  to  the  most  illustrious  and  most 
stringent  of  all  testimony  taken  from  the  autho- 
rity of  the  General  Councils  to  prove  the  truth 
of  our  thesis. 

It  is  Florence,  which  once  more,  and  for  the 
last  time,  saw  assembled  the  Hierarchy  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Church;  and  let  us  now 
hear  how  those  Greek  Fathers,  living  so  many 
centuries  in  schism,  now  uniting  with  the  Fathers 
of  the  West,  pronounced  on  the  Apostolical  au- 
thority of  the  Roman  Pontiff  as  the  infallible 
Teacher  of  the  Church. 

Their  profession  of  faith  on  this  point  is 
couched  in  the  most  solemn  way  of  a  definition. 
They  say:  "We  define  that  the  Apostolic  See, 
that  is,  the  Roman  Pontiff,  has  the  right  of  Pri- 
macy over  all  the  churches  of  the  world ;  that  the 
Roman  Pontiff  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter ;  that 
he  is  the  very  Vicar  of  Christ,  the  head  of  the 
whole  Church,  the  Father  and  teacher  of  all  the 
faithful;  that,  in  the  person  of  Peter,  he  was  in- 
trusted by  our  Lord  with  full  power  to  feed, 
direct^  and  govern  the  whole  flock  of  Christ. 
Such  is  manifestly  the  doctrine  taught  by  the 


TESTnrONY   OF   THE   GEN.  CX)TJNCTLS.      149 

Acts  of  the  General  Councils,  as  well  as  by  the 
sacred  Canons."  ^^ Dcjinimus  sanctam  ApostoU- 
cam  sedem  et  Romanum  Fontijicem  in  universum 
orbem  terrarum  primatum  tenerCy  et  ipsum  Roma- 
num Pontificem  successorem  esse  Beati  Petri ^  prin- 
cipis  Apostolommij  et  verum  Christi  vicarium, 
totiusqiie  eccleske  caputy  et  omnium  Christianorum 
patrem  et  doctorem  existere,  et  ipsi  in  Beato  Petro 
pascendi,  regendi  et  gubernandi  universalem  eccle- 
siam  a  D.  N.  J.  C.  plcnam  potcstafcm  traditam 
esse  J  quemadmodum  etiam  in  gestis  a^cumenicoimm 
ConciUorum  et  in  saci'is  Canonibus  confinetur,^' 
What  a  glorious  and  comprehensive  testimony, 
corroborating  with  the  seal  of  its  authority  all 
that  we  have  thus  far  said  and  what  we  shall  or 
can  say  in  future  to  vindicate  the  truth  of  our 
thesis. 

Almost  every  word  of  this  definition  is  preg- 
nant with  meaning.  In  it,  the  Council  declares, 
that  the  Pope  is  a  very  Peter  in  authority ;  that 
he  is  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ,  the  teacher  of  all 
Christians,  and  consequently  also  of  Bishops; 
that  he  has  received  from  Christ  himself,  not 
merely  some  power,  but  the  plenitude  of  power, 
for  the  direction  and  guidance  of  the  Church ; 
and  finally,  that  the  acts  of  the  General  Councils, 
and  the  canons  of  the  Church  prove  this  sov- 
ereign authority  to  have  been  always  recognized 


150      TESTIMONY  OP  THE  GEN.  COUNCILS. 

by  the  faithful,  and  exercised  by  the  Popes  from 
the  very  birth  of  Christianity. 

We  can  not  omit  to  call  especially  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reflecting  reader  to  the  expression: 
"  Verum  Ohristi  VicariumJ'  "  The  true  and  real 
Vicar  of  Christ."  The  Popes  often  were  called 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter,  by  General  Councils 
and  the  representatives  of  Christ.  But  here  the 
Pope,  with  all  the  enforcing  strength  of  a  defini- 
tion, is  called  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ — the 
eternal  truth!  Would  this  be  true, if  the  Pope 
could  err  in  matters  of  faith? 

Christ  himself  promised  to  send,  in  his  place, 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  his  Vicar.  Defining  now, 
that  the  Pope  is  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ,  the 
Church  implicitly  identified  the  authority  of  the 
Pope  in  the  Church,  with  the  ministry  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  and  for  the  Church,  to  be  in  the 
Church  the  living  "organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'' 
the  true  "  Paraclete,'^  its  comforter.  Yes,  we 
feel  it  especially  in  our  times.  Or  is  Pius  IX 
not  eminently  the  "  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  the  "Paraclete"  and  comforter,  at  present, 
for  the  Church  of  God? 

Joseph,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  who 
died  at  Florence,  before  the  expiration  of  the 
Council,  repeated,  in  his  last  moments,  the  above 
formula,  to  which  he  had  previously  subscribed, 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      151 

and  then  added,  with  failing  voice,  that  the 
Apostolical  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  in  ques- 
tions of  doctrine,  was  designed  by  the  Almighty 
to  serve  as  the  solid  ground-work,  upon  w^hich 
the  faith  of  the  true  believer  should  rest.* 

XTIII.  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF 

TRENT. 

If  ever  it  was  important  to  gather  representa- 
tives from  every  quarter  of  the  Christian  world, 
in  order  to  confront  the  startling  errors  of 
pretended  world-reformers  with  the  traditionary 
teachings  of  the  Church,  it  certainly  was  so  dur- 
ing the  sixteenth  century.  Protestantism  was 
not  the  denial  or  distortion  of  this  or  that  par- 
ticular article  of  Catholic  doctrine,  but  a  tissue 
of  almost  all  the  heresies  that  had  hitherto  been 
broached  and  condemned.  It  was,  therefore, 
quite  natural  to  expect,  that  it  would  seek  to 
strip  the  Holy  See  of  all  authority  in  matters  of 
faith,  and,  if  possible,  to  rob  Christianity  itself 
of  that  innate  '^  conscience,"  which  instinctively 
led  the  children  of  the  Church  to  regard  as  di- 
vine the  decisions  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

*Conc.  torn,  xiii,  p.  494. 


152      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  Pope  very 
wisely  allowed  great  liberty  of  discussion,  in 
order  to  give  more  weight  to  the  decisions  of 
the  Council.  Yet  the  world  was  not  ignorant  of 
the  influence  which  Rome  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  deliberations  of  the  Fathers.  It  was  so  ap- 
parent, as  to  excite  the  anger  of  the  Protestants, 
and  even  the  disgust  of  some  so-called  Catholic 
theologians  of  later  times.  The  frivolous  Ger- 
man historian  Dannemayer,  blasphemously  de- 
clared that  "the  Holy  Ghost,  who  inspired  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council,  was  continually  sent  by 
mail  from  Rome  to  Trent." 

The  Council  itself,  in  three  several  decrees, 
speaks  of  Rome  as  the  mother  and  teacher  of  all 
the  Churches.*  In  the  twenty-fifth  session  it 
ruled,  "that  each  and  every  decree,  in  what- 
soever form  or  terms  it  may  be  couched,  be  so 
understood,  that  the  authority  of  the  Roman  See 
shall  remain  unimpaired."  "  Omnia  et  singula 
sub  quibuscumque  clausidis  et  verbis,  dedarat,  ita 
decrreta  fuisse,  ut  in  his  salva  semper  auctoritas 
sedis  ApostoUcce  sit  et  esse  inteUigatur,''  Beside 
all  the  canons  and  decrees  of  the  Council,  which 
lasted  for  so  many  years,  only  became  binding 
when  approved  by  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

* Sess.  14,  In.  Doct.  de  Ext.  Unct.;  Sess.  22,  c.  8;  Sess.  25,  Doer.  2. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   GEN.  COUNCILS.      153 

We  can  not  conclude  this  rapid  sketch  of  the 
General  Councils,  without  alluding  to  the  illus- 
trious assembly  of  more  than  two  hundred  bish- 
ops, who  met  at  Rome  in  the  year  1854,  to  assist 
at  the  solemn  definition  of  the  Inmiaculate  Con- 
ception. During  the  last  session,  after  all  the 
theologians  had  argued  the  point  u|X>n  the  sub- 
ject, with  great  depth  of  wisdom,  all  the  bishops, 
as  though  moved  by  one  and  the  same  spirit, 
turning  toward  Pius  IX,  broke  out  into  the  ex- 
clamation:  "Peter  teach  us!"    ^^ Petre  docenosP^ 

This  spontaneous  and  unanimous  acclamation 
showed  that,  according  to  the  convictions,  ground- 
ed on  faith,  of  these  two  hundred  bishops,  it  was 
not  the  reasoning  of  the  Doctors  and  neither 
their  own  theological  science  and  ability,  and 
neither  their  common  view  already  previously 
expressed  in  their  writings  to  the  Holy  Father, 
but  that  it  was  his  sole  and  own  judgment — his 
faith,  which  they  addressed,  in  order  to  hear, 
through  his  mouth,  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  what  they  and  the  whole  Church  were  re- 
quired to  believe,  in  this  matter,  to  be  a  "dogma 
of  faith." 


rv. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES 
THEMSELVES, 

ASSERTING    THEIR    PREROGATIVE    AS     THE    SUPREME    AND 
INFALLIBLE   JUDGES   IN   MATTERS   OF   FAITH, 


Though,  at  first  sight,  the  testimony  of  the 
Popes  may  appear  inadmissible  upon  this  sub- 
ject, because  it  constitutes  them  judges  in  their 
own  cause — ^'Judices  in  p7^opria  eausa^^ — yet, 
upon  reflection,  it  will  be  found  to  be  quite  as 
conclusive  as  any  other  of  a  less  personal  nature. 

In  the  first  place,  not  every  testimony  in  one's 
own  cause  is,  ipso  fadOj  invalid  ;  for,  then,  no- 
body could  advance  an  argument  to  prove  his 
rights.  Such  a  testimony  is  all  the  more  unex- 
ceptionable when  given  in  favor  of  a  prerogative 
due  to  no  individual  merit  of  ours,  but  insepar- 
(154) 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   POPES.  155 

able  from  the  office  which  we  hold ;  of  a  prerog- 
ative publicly  asserted  before  such  as  know  upon 
what  claims  it  rests ;  of  a  prerogative  affecting 
an  entire  community,  and  exercised  against  ene- 
mies who  would  contest  it,  were  there  any  pros- 
pect of  success. 

Applying  these  remarks  to  the  sul]»ject  in 
question,  we  hold  that  the  testimony  of  the 
Popes  furnishes  a  conclusive  argument  in  favor 
of  their  own  Infallibility.  For,  they  claimed 
this  prerogative  in  virtue  of  their  office;  they 
claimed  it  in  the  face  of  Bishops  and  Priests,  of 
Kings  and  Princes,  of  whom  many  were  deeply 
interested  in  the  matter ;  they  claimed  it,  in  fine, 
in  defiance  of  their  bitterest  enemies,  of  schis- 
matics and  heretics  m  the  East  and  the  West : 
and  they  sustaine<l  their  claim  by  the  authority 
of  Scripture  and  Tradition. 

We  have  only  to  recollect  those  most  solemn 
claims  for  this  their  privilege,  uttered  by  the 
Popes  on  occasion  of  the  celebration  of  the  First 
Eight  General  Councils  of  the  East. 

Had  the  Popes  not  known  themselves  to  be  in 
possession  of  an  entirely  indisputable  right,  when 
claiming  to  be  the  Supreme  Judges  in  matters  of 
faith,  all  circumstances  of  time,  places,  and  per- 
sons, would  have  induced  them,  in  all  human  pru- 
dence, to  assume,  while  facing  those  CEkjumenical 


i66  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   POPES, 

Councils,  quite  a  different  stand,  and  to  pursue 
quite  another  course  of  proceeding  than  they 
actually  did. 

Reviewing  the  history  of  the  CEcumenical 
Councils,  the  Popes  at  every  step  defied  the  Fa- 
thers of  those  Councils  to  do  any  thing  further 
than  acknowledge  this  sublime  privilege  of  the 
Holy  See  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome. 

We  remember  the  examples  of  a  Leo,  Agatho, 
and  the  two  Adrians.  They  even  did  not  permit 
so  much  as  the  change  of  an  "  iota "  in  their  pro- 
fessions of  faith,  no  matter  if  even  the  same  truth 
were  expressed.  They  acted  so  in  the  face  of  the 
Greeks  in  the  far  East,  whose  prejudices  against 
the  Western  Church  were  known  to  them.  They 
acted  so,  opposed  by  mighty  adversaries,  who 
often  were  protected  by  the  whole  strength  of 
the  Imperial  power ;  and,  how  remarkable  !  no 
one  dared  even  to  say  a  word,  which  would  have 
called  in  question  the  Apostolical  authority  of  the 
See  of  Rome  as  the  Supreme  Tribunal  in  matters 
of  faith. 

Were  there  no  other  utterances  on  the  part 
of  the  Popes,  than  those  already  mentioned 
in  the  testimony  of  the  General  Councils,  they 
would  afford  a  very  strong  and  more  than  suf- 
ficient testimony  in  regard  to  their  consciousness 
in  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  as  to  their  priv- 


CLAIMING  THIS   PREEOGATIVE.  157 

ilege.  But  they  repeated  also,  on  many  other  oc- 
casions, these  their  claims.  To  them  we  shall 
now  devote  our  attention. 

Such  declarations  were  unnecessary  so  long  as 
no  rebellious  spirit  arose  to  resist  the  right  in 
question.  The  right  itself  was  exercised,  even  in 
the  Apostolic  age,  by  Pope  Clement,  and  repeat- 
edly through  the  course  of  three  hundred  years ; 
but  the  "conscience  of  Christianity,"  which  was  far 
too  correct  and  enlightened  to  call  it  in  question, 
required  no  particular  direction  in  this  matter.  It 
was  not  until  the  recreant  children  of  the  house- 
hold, protected  by  the  civil  power,  raised  the  stand- 
ard of  revolt,  that  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  found 
himself  necessitated  to  contend,  in  explicit  terras, 
for  the  prerogatives  vested  in  him.  Such  an  occa- 
sion, however,  presented  itself  as  soon  as  the  cross 
began  to  adorn  the  crowns  of  earthly  princes. 
Arius  had  disseminated  doctrines  which  aimed  at 
the  very  life  of  Christianity.  His  partisans,  who 
daily  grew  in  number,  went  so  far  as  to  hold 
Councils,  and  sustained  by  the  protection  of  the 
deluded  sons  of  Constantine,  expelled  St.  Athan- 
asius  and  other  orthodox  Bishops  from  their  Sees. 
Pope  Julius,  who  saw  the  dangers  that  threat- 
ened the  faith,  interfered  and  wrote  to  the  fallen 
Bishops  of  the  East :  "  Do  you  not  know  that 
it  is  customary  to  write  to  us,  in  order  that  we 


158  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

may  define  what  is  right."  "J.n  ignari  estis, 
hanc  consuetudinem  esse,  ut  jv^imum  nobis  scriba- 
tur,  ut  hinCy  quod  justum  est,  definiri  possitJ'  * 
These  words  of  the  Holy  Father  contain  a  latent 
meaning,  which  should  have  told  with  humiliating 
effect,  upon  the  parties  concerned. 

The  meaning  of  this  reproach  by  the  Holy 
Father,  is  evidently  as  follows :  "  We  under- 
stand that  you  may  have  been  puzzled  and  mis- 
led in  regard  to  your  judgment  about  the  mystery 
of  the  Holy  Trinity ;  but  how  could  you  be  so 
blind  or  so  rash  as  not  to  realize  the  obligation, 
known  for  ages,  of  waiting  for  our  decision  upon 
all  points  of  doctrine  ?  " 

After  this  censure  of  their  conduct,  Julius  an- 
nulled their  enactments  and  restored  the  deposed 
Bishops  to  their  Sees.  So  intimately  was  the 
whole  proceeding  connected  with  faith,  that  not 
even. the  heretical  Bishops  could  fail  to  see,  in 
the  acts  of  the  Pope,  the  condemnation  of  their 
errors.  Yet  they  feared  to  make  any  opposition, 
and,  crushed  by  the  weight  of  his  authority,  re- 
luctantly submitted  to  his  decisions."  f 

Not  long  af^er,  Constans,  who  had  resolved  to 
control  the  influence  of  the  Synod  held  at  Rimini, 
threatened  to  send  Pope  Liberius  into  exile. 
The   fearless   representative   of  Christ   replied: 

*Hard.  i,  610.  flbid. 


CLAIMING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.  159 

"  Thou  canst  not  diminish -the  words  of  faith  by 
my  solitude/'  ^'Non  diminues  tii,  solitudine  mea, 
verba  fideV^  The  import  of  this  pithy  little 
sentence  can  not  be  mistaken :  "  Even  when  I 
am  exiled  and  compelled  to  pine  away  in  weary 
solitude,  I  still  continue  to  be  the  bearer  of  the 
deposit  of  the  holy  faith  of  all.'' 

Himerius,  Bishop  of  Spain,  had  asked  Pope 
Damasus  for  instructions  on  ecclesiastical  matters 
of  considerable  importance ;  but,  Damasus  hav- 
ing died,  his  successor  SiRicius  answered  the 
])c'tition:  "Thou  hast  asked  us,  as  the  head  of 
the  Church  ;  we  answer,  then,  in  the  name  and 
with  the  authority  of  Peter,  who  protects  the 
heirs  of  his  spiritual  power,  and  we  decide,  not 
merely  for  thy  personal  direction,  but  for  that  of 
all  the  Churches  in  general.'*  "  Quid  ab  universia 
Ecdes'ils  seqmndum  sit,  quid  vitandum,  generali 
pronuntiatione  decernimus.^'  Accom})anying  the 
answer  was  an  order  to  inform  the  Bishops  of 
Gaul,  Spain,  and  Africa  of  the  decision. 

Marca  directs  attention  to  the  fact,  that  this 
Eescript  claims  for  the  decisions,  which  Avere 
given  by  Siricius  in  private,  as  much  authority 
as  if  they  had  been  delivered  by  him  in  full 
Council. 

In  another  letter,  addressed  to  all  the  Bishops 
of  the  world — '^ad  universos  Ejnscopos'^ — the 


160  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   POPES, 

Pope  emphatically  declares :  "  If  any  body  dares 
to  set  aside  this  ordinance,  let  him  know  that 
he  is  cut  off  from  our  communion,  and  guilty  of 
the  pains  of  hell."  ^^Si  quis,  inflatus  made  catmis 
sum  ah  hoxi  canonis  rcdione  voluerit  evagari,  sciat 
se  a  nostra  communione  exelusum  et  gehen7ioe 
pcenas  habiturum." 

Abbot  Gerbert  concluded,  with  much  reason, 
that  Siricius  would  never  have  used  these  ex- 
pressions and  menaces  of  everlasting  perdition, 
had  he  not  been  conscious  of  his  right  to  decide 
upon  the  point  in  question  and  of  the  opinion 
entertained  concerning  this  right  by  the  faithful 
at  large. 

Pope  ZosiMUS  (t418)  likewise  reminded  the 
African  Bishops,  that  no  one  dared  to  call  in 
question  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See — "  Ut  de 
ejus  Judicio  nemo  disceptare  audeat " — and  he  as- 
signs as  reason,  that  the  dignity  and  power  con- 
ferred by  the  Lord  upon  Peter,  descends,  without 
diminution,  to  every  succeeding  Pope.  Hence 
he  infers,  that  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See  are 
irrevocable,  and  as  firm  as  the  foundations  of 
the  Church.  Finally,  he  concludes  by  appealing 
to  the  convictions  of  the  prelates,  whom  he  ad- 
dresses: "You  are  fully  aware  of  all  this," 
writes  he,  "as  priests  are  bound  to  be."  "jEc 
ipsa  quoque  Chrlsti  promissione,  ut  et  ligata  sol- 


CLAIMING   THIS   PEEROGATIYE.  161 

veret,  d  soluta  vinciret,  par  potestatis  data  conditio 
in  COS,  qui  sedis  hwreditatcm,  ipso  annuente,  me- 
ruisseiU  ;  nee  patitur  aliquid  priiHegii  aid  aliqua 
tituhare  aura  sententice,  cui  ipsa  mii  Kominis 
finna  et  null  is  hebeiata  motibus  constituit  fmida- 
mmta.  Non  Met  vos,  fraires  charissimi,  sed  nos- 
tis,  quemadnwdum  sacerdotes  scire  debetis. 

We  know  the  effect  of  his  decision.  St.  Augus- 
tin  with  all  the  Africans  exclaimed  :  ''  Rome  has 
spoken,  the  dispute  is  at  an  end.'' 

A  similar  tone  j>ervades  the  letter  of  Zosimus, 
to  the  Bishojis  of  Gaul  and  to  the  Synotl  of  Ri- 
mini. The  faithful  of  those  days  recognized  the 
claims  advanced  by  the  Pope;'  but,  long  after, 
the  famous  Causabon,  who  had  not  their  religioiLS 
instincts,  took  offense  at  the  freedom  which  he 
assumed,  and  scornfully  spoke  of  him  as  a  pre- 
mature HiLDEBRAND.* 

We  agree  willingly  to  the  application,  because 
it  evidently  proves'  that  what  Gregory  VII 
claimed,  was  not  usurpation  and  the  fruit  of  the 
ignorance  of  the  so-called  darkness  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  but  the  clear  consciousness  of  a  right,  in- 
herited from  his  predecessors,  since  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  name. 

BojaFACE  I  (t422),  the  successor  of  Zosi- 
mus, was  not  less  positive  than  he  in  vindicating 

♦Exercit.  xv. 

14 


162  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   POPES, 

the  rights  of  the  Holy  See.  In  a  letter  to  his 
Vicar,  Rufus  of  Thessalonica,  he  writes  :  "  Never 
was  it  allowed  to  call  up  anew  any  point,  on 
which  the  Holy  See  had  already  pronounced;" 
while,  in  a  communication  to  Peregines  he  de- 
clares: "No  one  ever  called  in  question  the 
decision  of  this  Apostolical  tribunal,  without 
laying  himself  open  to  its  censures."  ^^  Nisi 
qui  de  se  voluit  Judicari.^ 

A  book  entitled  ^^  Praeteritorum  sedis  Apos- 
toliece  Episcoporum  Auctoritates/^  and  commonly 
attributed  to  Pope  Ccelestin,  contains  this  re- 
markable sentence:  "We  profess  nothing,  but 
what  the  See  of  Peter  has  taught  and  commanded 
by  the  mouth  of  his  successors ;  so  that  we  regard 
it  as  not  at  all  Catholic  whatever  is  opposed  to  its 
decision."  "  Ut  prorsus  non  cestimemus  Catholi- 
cum,  quod  apparuerit  prcefatis  sententiis  esse  con- 
trariumy 

Pope  XiSTUS  the  successor  of  Coeiestin,  writing 
to  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  says :  "  Thou  hast 
now  understood  what  it  means  to  be  of  one 
mind  with  us."  And  pointing  out  the  reason 
of  this  necessary  submission  to  the  doctrinal 
teaching  of  the  Pope,  he  writes  this  very  re- 
markable sentence:    "Peter,   who  continues  to 

*Ep.  8,  9,  10,  15. 


CLAIMING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.  163 

live  in  his  successors,  teaches  the  pure  unadul- 
terated faith,  which  he  did  not  acquire  from 
hearing  or  reading,  but  which  he  received  from 
the  Lord  himself,  and  which  admits  of  no  con- 
troversy or  discussion/'  ''Ab'solufam  d  simpUeem 
fdan,^  et  quce  controversiam  non  habet  aecepif.'' 

This  passage  of  Xistus  means,  according  to 
the  just  interpretation  of  the  learned  Constant, 
that  "the  authority  of  the  Roman  Bishop  is  not 
due  to  his  erudition  or  to  the  facilities  which  he 
enjoys  of  learning  what  is  of  faith,  but  to  the  re- 
lation in  which  he  stands  toward  St.  Peter,  who 
was  put  in  possession  of  tlic  treasure  of  fliith,  by 
a  direct  connnunication  from  the  Ix)rd  himsellV'* 
Leo  the  Great  (t454)  urged  tlie  .same  point',  in 
the  sermons,  which  he  delivered  on  the  anniver- 
saries of  his  elevation  to  the  throne  of  Peter: 
"Who  but  Antichrist  dares  to  a.ssail  the  invin- 
cible fortress  of  truth.''     "  Quis  est  nisi  Ajiti^ 
chi^tus,  quipulsare  audet  inexpugnabilem  verita- 
temf'^     "The  disposition  of  truth  remains,  and 
Blessed  Peter,  retaining  the  firmness  of  a  rock, 
does   not   abandon   the   helm   of  the   Church.'' 
''Manet  ergo  dispositio  vevitatis,  et  B.  Petrus,  in 
acceptafortmdine,  suscepta  EeclesicE  gubemacula 
non  relinquif 

*Pr»f.  in  epist.  Pontific. 


164  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

SiMPLicius  (t483),  admonigliing  the  Emperor 
Zeno  of  his  duties,  reminds  him  that  he  was  en- 
titled to  do  so  because  the  Lord  committed  to 
Peter  the  care  of  his  sheep,  and  that  the  teach- 
ing of  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  for  all  time  to 
come  was  to  remain  the  rule  of  the  very  Apos- 
tolical doctrine :  "  Hcbg  et  eadem  ApostoliacB  nor- 
ma doctrinoe. 

Felix  III  (t492),  uses  similar  expressions, 
not  only  in  his  letter  to  the  same  Emperor,  who 
had  become  a  mere  tool  in  the  hand  of  a  fac- 
tion, but  likewise  in  a  letter  to  Acacius  and  Peter 
FuUo.  The  former  was  summoned  to  Rome,  to 
give  an  account  of  his  doings  to  Peter,  and  the 
latter  was  informed  that  he  had  been  condemned 
by  St.  Peter  himself. 

On  another  occasion  he  writes  this  beautiful 
sentence:  '^No  matter  what  danger  may  beset  the 
Church,  the  judgment  of  Peter  never  can  be  im- 
paired. So  far  from  being  weakened,  it  grows  yet 
more  powerful  under  the  pressure  of  persecution.'' 
'^Quibuslibet  sit  vallata  Ecolesia  periculisy  nun- 
quam  pondus  vigoris  sui  censura  beati  Petri 
amittit;  tanto  non  frangitur,  sed  potiuSy  erudita 
divinitus,  crescit  adversisJ^^  v 

Do  we  not  see  these  remarks  strikingly  veri- 

*Hard.  ii,  118. 


CLAIMING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.     165 

fied  in  the  steadfast  opposition  maintained  in  onr 
times  by  our  Holy  Fatlier  to  the  impuguers  of 
his  highest  prerogatives  ? 

St.  Gelasius  (t-196)  expresses  himself  in  the 
following  terms :  "  Peter  blessed  the  Roman  See, 
that  the  gates  of  hell  never  should  prevail  against 
it;  but  that  it  should  be  the  harbor,  in  wliieh  all 
seeking  safety  there,  find  eternal  rest.  But  woe 
to  whomsoever  will  despise  it — he  may  see  what 
kind  of  excuses  he  will  allege  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment.'' ^^Quwn  ipse  (Pdnts)  benedivit,  iif  ajjortis 
injcri  nunquanij  pro  Domini  promissione,  vinca- 
tur,  omniumqiie  sif  Jfucturnitium  portus,  in  quo,  qui 
requieverity  beata  ac  aierna  statione  gaudcbit ;  qui 
vero  conteninerity  ipse  videbU,  qualia  genera  excus- 
cUionum  in  die  Judicii  obtendaf.^' 

In  his  letter  to  the  Emperor  Anastasius  he 
calls  the  Roman  See  the  root  of  the  world — 
^' mundi  radix^^ — inasmuch  as  it  communicates 
to  the  whole  world  the  life  of  the  true  faith. 
Hence,  if  faith  would  be  poisoned  in  the  Roman 
See,  Christianity  itself  w^ould  die  away.  ^^Nam 
si,  quod  Deus  avertat,  quod  fieri  non  posse  confi- 
dimus,  tale  quid  evenerit,  unde  cuiquam  resistere 
audcremus  errori?  vel  unde  corredionem  erranti- 
bus  posceremus  f^^ 

In  his  Commonitorium,  addressed  to  the  impe- 
rial Prefect  Faustus,  the  same  author  declares : 


166 


"All  the  faithful  are  aware,  that  the  Holy  See 
has  the  right  to  annul  whatever  is  done  by  any 
Prelate  of  the  Church,  because  she  has  the  right 
to  judge  every  other  church ;  but  no  other  church 
has  a  right  to  judge  her."  "  Cuneta  per  mundum 
novit  Ecolesia,  quoniam,  quorumlibet  sententiis 
ligata  Pmitijicum,  sedes  Sti.  Petri  Apostoli  jus 
habet  resohendi,  utpote  quce  de  omni  EccJesia  jus 
habet  judicandiy  neque  ciiiquam  liceat  de  ejus  ju- 
dicare  judicio.^'  She  possesses  the  plenitude  of 
judicial  power — *'summam  judieii  totiusJ^  He 
says  that  he  heard  of  persons  appealing  to  the 
"Canons"  in  order  to  evade  his  judgment.  He 
ridicules  them,  "they  may  keep  their  foolishness 
for  themselves."     ^'Ineptias  suas  sibi  servent." 

"For  evidently  they  do  not  know  what  they 
are  saying,  because  the  words  of  Christ,  constant 
tradition*  and  the  Canons  themselves  agree  in 
asserting  that  the  Holy  See  is  empowered  to  sit 
in  judgment  on  the  whole  Church."  ^^  Quaprop' 
ter  non  veremur,  ne  Apostolica  sententia  resolvatur, 
quam  et  vox  Christij  et  majorum  traditio  et  Cano- 
num  autorltas  fulcit,  ut  totam  potius  Eccle- 

SIAM  IPSA  JUDICET." 

What  an  overwhelming  argument  is  contained 
in  these  few  words ! 

Agapetus  (t536)  required  a  similar  act  of 
submission  from  the    Emperor   Justinian,   who 


CLAIMING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.  167 

accordingly  subscribed  the  formula  of  profession 
with  his  own  hand,  and  then  sent  the  document, 
with  his  signatiure,  back  to  Rome. 

Pelagius  I  (t^59)  asserted  his  privilege  quite 
as  decisively,  in  a  letter  to  the  Bishops  of  Istria, 
whom  he  bids  remember,  that  "  truth  can  not 
lie,  nor  the  fhith  of  Peter  waver  or  change." 
^^Considerate  quod  Veritas  mentiri  non  potuit,  nee 
fides  Petri  in  cdernum  quassari  poterit  vel  mu- 
tari:' 

Gregory  the  Great  wrote  to  the  Bishops 
of  Gaul:  ^'Should  any  dispute  arise  about  mat>- 
ters  of  faith,  it  is  incumbent  on  you  to  apprise  us 
of  it,  that,  by  our  decision,  we  may  definitively 
settle  the  point  in  question."  "67  quam  vero  con- 
troversiam — de  fidei  causa  evenire  contigit — 
relatione  sua  ad  nostram  siivdeat  perducere  notio- 
nein,  quafenus  a  nobi^  valeat  congrtux  sine  dubio 
senfenfia  terminari.^'^ 

The  same  firmness  appears  in  the  writings  of 
Pope  Theodore,  and  in  those  of  the  captive 
Pontiff  Martin.  In  a  letter,  condemnatory  of 
the  imperial  statute  entitled  the  Typus,  the  latter 
declares  the  judgment  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  to 
be  the  judgment  of  Peter  himself.  In  a  docu- 
ment on  the  heretical  movements  of  the  time,  he 

*  Lib.  V,     Ep.  53  et  56. 


168 


adverts  to  the  power  conferred  on  him  in  the 
person  of  St.  Peter,  and  then  he  exhorts  all  the 
Bishops  to  be  the  children  of  obedience — "o6e- 
dientice  filiV  In  fine,  he  orders  his  vicar  at 
Antioch  to  require  from  all  a  written  declaration 
of  their  adhesion  to  the  teachings  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See. 

Gregory  II  (t731)  vindicated  the  claims  of 
the  Apostolic  Chair  with  no  less  resolution  than 
Martin  had  done  before  him.  He  wrote  to  the 
Iconoclast  Leo  the  Isaurian :  "  In  virtue  of  the 
authority  left  to  us  by  St.  Peter,  we  cut  you  off 
from  the  Communion  of  the  Church  ;  for  you 
must  know  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Pope, 
and  not  of  the  Emperor,  to  decide  upon  articles 
of  faith.''  ^^  SciaSj  imjjerator,  Ecclesioe  dogmata 
non  imperatorum  esse,sed  PontijiGumJ^ 

Pope  Stephen,  conscious  of  his  position  in 
the  Church,  wrote  to  Pepin,  *Mn  the  name  of 
Peter,"  whom  he  called  the  enlighten cr  of  the 
whole  world — ^'illunmiator  totius  mundV^ — and 
spoke  of  the  Roman  Church  as  the  foundation  of 
the  Christian  faith.  ^^ Fundamentum  fidei  Chris- 
tiance,  Romana  EcclesiaJ' 

ViTALiAN  and  Leo  II  manifested  the  same 
sentiments,  as  did  likewise  Adeodatus  in  his 
letter  to  the  Bishops  of  Gaul. 

Nicholas  (1867)  called  the  Supreme  Judici- 


CLAIMING   THIS    PREROGATIVE.  169 

ary  authority  of  the  Holy  See  "the  universal 
rule  of  righteousness,"  and,  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  the  King  and  to  the  Synod  of  Soissons,  con- 
cerning the  Bishop  Rothado,  he  remarked  that 
the  rights  and  privileges  conferred  by  the  Lord 
on   the  Holy  See    were   the    safeguard   of  the 
Church,  and  its  bulwarks  against  the  assaults  of 
iniquity.     *' Prlvilegia  sedis  Apostoliccc  tegmina 
sujii  totius   Ecdesioe   Cathjoliccej  munimina  sunt 
circa  omnes  impetus  pravitads,'^     "  You  have  an 
instance  of  it,"  wrote  he,  "  in  Rothado  himself, 
the  Bishop  of  Soissons.     He  fled  to  us  for  refuge, 
and  found  it.     How  do  you  know  that  what  has 
liappened  to  this  Bishop,  so  unjustly  persecuted, 
may  not  happen  to  you  likewise?     And,  if  it 
should    hapi>en,    to   whom    will    you   have   re- 
course?"    ^^Quod  Rothado  hodie  contigii,  unde 
scitis,    quod  eras   non   cuilibet  eveniat  vesirumf 
Qaodsi  coiitigerii,  ad  cujus  confugietis  auxiliumf^* 
No  one  can  fail  to  perceive  the  appropriate- 
ness of  this  reflection.     They  certainly  could  not 
apply,  with  any  hope  of  success,  to  simple  Bish- 
ops  of  another   country,  whose  jurisdiction    is 
confined  to  their  own  dioceses,  but  only  to  the 
general  Vicar  of  Christ,  whose  authority  is  re- 
cognized in   every   part  of  the   world.     Hence 
Rothado  declared :  "  I  appeal  to  that  supreme 
authority  which  no  one  can  dispute  or  coutra- 
15 


170 


dict.'^  ''  Summam  illam  auctoritatem  appello,  cui 
nullus  potest  contradicereJ' 

We  admit  that  the  incident  to  which  we  here 
allude  has  no  direct  reference  to  our  thesis;  nev- 
ertheless it  shows  most  clearly,  how  becoming 
it  was,  that  Christ,  for  the  good  and  protection 
of  the  Church,  diffused  over  the  w^hole  globe, 
has  invested  its  "Head  with  a  plenitude  of  spirit- 
ual power,  to  meet  every  emergency  in  every  part 
of  the  world. 

Conscious  of  this  supreme  power  exercised  by 
the  Popes,  in  matters  of  faith  as  well  as  of  disci- 
pline, Nicholas  also  wrote  to  the  Oriental  Bish- 
ops :  "  What  was  ever  valid,  that  was  not  sanc- 
tioned by  the  See  of  Peter  ?  ^^  ^'  Quid  ratmriy  quid 
prorsus  acceptum,  nisi  quod  Sedes  beati  Petri  pro- 
bavit,  ut  ipsi  scitls  f  '^  He  held  precisely  the  same 
language  to  the  Bishops  of  the  West,  where  he 
found  it  necessaiy  to  remind  them  of  their  duty. 
Thus,  when  he  had  lieard  that  a  Synod,  held  at 
Mayence,  had  sanctioned  the  divorce  of  King 
Lolhan,  he  annulled  the  proceedings  of  tlie  as- 
sembly, deposed  the  Bishops  who  had  taken  a 
part  in  it,  and  pronounced  the  following  sentence 
of  excommunication  :  "  If  any  one  makes  light 
of  the  dogmas,  mandates,  interdicts,  sanctions, 
and  decrees  relative  to  faith  or  discipline,  pro- 
mulgated by  the  incumbent  of  the  Apostolic  See, 


CLAIMING  THIS   PREEOGATIVE.  171 

let  him  be  anathema."  ^' Si  quis  dogmata^  man- 
data,  intcrdiday  sandiones  vel  decnta  pro  fide 
cathoUca,  et  j^ro  ccchsiastim  dkciplina  a  8cdis 
Apo8tolic(B  proiside  pjromulgatay  contenipsef^U^  a7ia- 
the  ma  slt.^^ 

John  VIII  (t882)  uses  the  following  em- 
phatic expression  in  his  letter  to  Michael  of 
Bulgaria:  "You  are  aware,  we  presume,  that 
the  Roman  See  has  never  been  accused  by  other 
Sees  of  heresy,  but  that  she  has  often  reproached 
other  Sees,  and  particularly  that  of  Constantino- 
ple, for  their  delcction,  and  that  she  freed  them 
from  the  stain  contracted,  when  they  were  sub- 
missive, but  condemned  them  when  they  proved 
refractory." 

We  must  not  omit  the  remarkable  words  ad- 
dressed by  the  same  Pope  to  Peter  Comes :  "  Let 
the  King  peruse  the  Gospel  record.  There  he 
will  find  that  Christ  prayed  for  nobody  else  than 
for  Peter,  who  came  to  Rorae ;  there  he  lived ; 
there  he  died ;  there  he  left  his  own  authority 
for  all  the  time  to  come.* 

Stephen  YI  (t897)  solemnly  asserts  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Papal  Apostolical  teaching  au- 
thority, in  a  letter  written  to  Constantinople, 
when  Photius  began  to  manifest  his  schismatical 

^■^Hara.  vi,  16-18,  50,  56,  59,  98,  102. 


172  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

tendencies.  *^  The  Church  of  Eome,"  writes  he, 
"was  intended  to  serve  as  a  model  and  .mirror 
for  all  the  other  Churches.  Any  point  which 
she  has  defined,  is  forever  decided  and  unchange- 
able." ^^Romana  Ecdesia  velut  speculum  quod- 
dam  et  exemplum  ecclesiis  cceteris  proposita  est, 
quce  si  quid  dejlnierit,  id  omnibus  soeculis  firmum 
ineoncussumque  manet.^^  He  cautions  the  Em- 
peror, who  showed  himself  favorable  to  the 
Photian  faction,  not  to  interfere  in  Church 
matters :  "  You  should  confine  your  solicitude 
to  the  duties  of  your  civil  administration." 
^'JRe7mm  tantum  soecularium  curam  gerere  debes." 
"The  care  of  the  Church  has  been  intrusted  by 
the  Lord  to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  whose  dignity 
is  as  far  above  that  of  an  earthly  sovereign,  as 
the  stars  are  above  the  earth." 

The  writings  of  Leo  VII  (t939),  of  Aga- 
petus  II  (t955),  of  John  XIII  (t972),  of  Bene- 
dict VI  (t974),  of  Gregory  V  (t999),  of  Syl- 
vester II  (tl003),  and  of  Benedict  VII  (1983), 
breathe  all  the  same  consciousness  of  this  their 
privilege  and  rights. 

Fully  aware  of  it,  Leo  IX  (tl047)  addressed 
the  schismatic  Greeks  of  his  time  in  the  following 
emphatical  ways :  "  Christ  distinctly  affirmed 
that  He  had  asked  for  Peter  stability  of  faith  ; 
and  who  is  so  bereft  of  reason  — '  tantce  am- 


CLAIMINO   THIS   PREROGATTYE.  173 

^tice  '—as  to  harbor  the  thought  that  His  prayer 
was  not  heard  ?  The  Lord  intimated  that  a  time 
of  trial  would  come  ;  but  He  also  promised  that, 
like  an  anchor  fixed  in  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  the 
faith  of  Peter  would  save  the  imperiled  bark 
from  destruction.  The  promise  was  not  in  vain ; 
for  the  Roman  Pontiffs  have  invariably  dis- 
pelled the  hallucinations  of  heretics,  and  strength- 
ened the  brethren  in  the  faith  of  Peter,  which 
has  never  yet  failed,  and  which  never  will  fail 
unto  the  end."  "  Tarn  per  Pctntmj  quam  per 
guGcessores  suos  reprohata  et  expugncUa  sunt  om- 
nium hcereticonim  commenta,  et  fratrum  corda  in 
fide  Petri,  quae  hactenus  non  defeeUy  nee  usque  in 
fincm  dcficict,  confirmataJ'  "You  may  think 
of  me  as  a  man  whatever  you  please — ^  de  homi- 
ne  credite  homines,  quod  tmltis ' — but  never  shall 
we  permit  that  you  should  dare  to  impair  the 
Supreme  Apostolical  authority  of  the  Roman  See. 
He  that  attacks  the  Church  of  Rome,  aims  at 
subverting  not  merely  one  Church,  but  all  Chris- 
tianity. Because,  how  will  the  distressed  children 
be  able  to  breathe  ?  To  whom  shall  they  fly  for 
refuge?"  ^^Cujus  enim  sustentatione  alteimis  res- 
pirabunt  filice  a  quovis  oppresses,  ilia  suffocata 
matref  cujus  refugium  apjjellabunt f'^  If  Pius 
were  to  die,  with  what  anxiety  and  almost  breath- 
lessness   would  the  whole  Church  look  for  an- 


174  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   POPES, 

other  head.  We  regard  as  especially  happy,  the 
use  which  Leo  here  makes  of  the  word  respira- 
hunt — breathe,  inhale.  For  the  whole  Church, 
and  consequently  all  its  members,  owe  their 
life,  through  faith,  to  their  union  with  the  Su- 
preme Pontiif  as  the  visible  head  of  the  mystical 
body  of  the  Church. 

YiCTOB  II,  Stephen  IX,  and  Nicholas  II, 
all  reecho  the  views  of  their  illustrious  predeces- 
sor. Nicholas  writes  to  Gervasius,  Bishop  of 
Eheims:  "We  exercise  the  ministry  of  Peter, 
that  we  may  correct  errors.^'  "  Quatenus  errata 
corrigamusJ^ 

In  the  Synod  of  Rome,  at  which  the  imperial 
deleiJ:ates  assisted,  Alexander  II,  remarked :  "  If 
the  Church  of  Rome  remain  firm,  all  the  other 
Churches  will  remain  firm ;  but  if  she,  who  is 
the  ground-work  and  basis  of  the  rest,  be  un- 
dermined, all  the  others  will  of  necessity  soon 
crumble  into  ruin.  "Hac  enim  stante,  reliquce 
slant;  sin  hcee  autem,  quce  omnium  fundamentum 
est  et  basis,  obruitur,  cceterarum  quoque  status 
neeesse  ut  coUabatur.^' 

We  have  now  come  to  the  illustrious,  but 
much-maligned  Gregory  YII,  whom  both  friends 
and  foes  agree  in  representing  to  be  the  exponent 
of  all  the  claims  ever  advanced  by  the  Holy 
See,   in  the  political  as  well  as  in  the  purely 


CLAIMING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.  175 

ecclesiastical  order.  The  former,  as  we  have  re- 
marked above,  is  not  directly  connected  with  our 
subject;  yet  indirectly  it  is,  and  this  in  a  most 
positive  and  strikiui^  ^vay,  because  the  people 
and  Prince-s  seeing  the  Supreme  Pontills  placed 
as  Judges  on  the  tribunal  of  eternal  and  celestial 
truth,  thought  it  but  just  to  commit  to  their 
arbitration  temporal  affairs. 

AVe  would  be  compelled  to  transcribe  nearly 
the  whole  BuUarium  Romanuniy  because  scarcely 
a  single  public  document  has  been  issued,  which 
does  not,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  claim  for 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter  the  right  of  instruct- 
ing and  judging  the  Church,  and  of  approving 
or  condemning  whatever  bears  upon  the  dogmas 
of  faith  and  morals. 

Let  us  now  consider,  in  what  manner  and  to 
what  extent  the  Popes  have  exercised  the  right 
of  deciding  questions  of  doctrine,  without  the 
concurrence  of  a  Council.  For,  even  though 
they  had  not  expressed  their  views  upon  that 
subject,  the  mere  exercise  of  the  Papal  preroga- 
tive of  being  the  supreme  and  infallible  judges 
in  matters  of  faith,  would  furnish  us  with  an 
evident  proof  of  its  existence,  and  of  their  deter- 
mination to  vindicate  it,  in  the  face  of  the  most 
violent  opposition. 


PEREMPTORY  AND  SOLEMN  EXER- 
CISE OF  THIS  PREROGATIVE. 

THE  POPES  OP  ALL  CENTURIES,  DEFINITIVELY  BY  THEIK  OWN 
AUTHORITY,  CONDEMNING  HERESY  AND  ERRORS. 


The  prerogative  of  the  Holy  See,  as  being  the 
Supreme  Tribunal  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  was 
exercised  by  the  Vicar  of  Christ  even  during  the 
life-time  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  The  Corin- 
thians being  involved  in  disputes,  which  threat- 
ened to  rend  the  unity  of  their  infant  Church,  ad- 
dressed themselves  to  Pope  Clement  at  Rome. 
And  why  should  they  apply  to  him  for  a  definitive 
solution  of  their  difficulties?  Why  lay  their  com- 
plaints before  a  foreign  tribunal?  Why  not  ad- 
dress themselves  to  the  aged  Disciple,  or  to  the  in- 
cumbent of  some  Apostolic  Church  nearer  home? 

(176) 


EXERCISING   THIS    PREROGATTS^E.         177 

We  see  but  one  plausible  explanation ;  they  knew 
full  well  that  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  is  the 
ordinary  Supreme  Judge  in  matters  of  faith  and 
discipline.  Clement  at  once  gave  his  decision, 
and  restored  peace  to  the  Church.  Schmitz  calls 
things  by  their  right  name,  when  he  speaks  of 
this  occurrence  as  "  a  recourse  of  the  Church  of 
Corinth  to  the  Roman  See.''* 

Even  the  famous  '^  Ceivturiators^^  of  Magde- 
burg acknowledged  that,  in  this  instance,  Clem- 
ent acted  as  Supreme  Judge  in  matters  gf  faith. 
Besides  it  is  very  providential  and  remarkable 
that  the  record  of  this  event  was  preserved  in 
the  Eastern  Church,  and  sent  to  the  West  by  Cy- 
ril, the  Calvinistic  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.! 
The  judicial  prerogative  of  the  Holy  See  was 
exercised  in  a  very  remarkable  manner,  during 
the  second  century,  by  Po})e  Hyginus.  He 
condemned  the  errors  of  Valentinus,  Cerdonius 
and  Marcion,  without  calling  a  Council ;  and  yet, 
as  Bercastel  observes,  even  the  heresiarchs  them- 
selves did  not  appeal  to  any  other  tribunal,  as 
they  would  certainly  have  done,  had  there  been 
any  possibility  of  calling  in  question  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. J 

*  Dissert,  de  pot.  legisl.  Eec.  Heidelberg,  1792. 

t  S3e  the  German  Journal :  "  Der  Katholik,"  Aug.,  1825,  p.  149. 

j  Bercastel  i,  143. 


178  TESTIMONY   OF  THE   POPES, 

During  the  same  second  century,  this  preroga- 
tive was  exercised  by  Eleutherius  against  the 
Gnostics,  and  by  Victor  against  Ebion,  Arte- 
mon,  and  Theodotus  of  Byzantium,  all  of  whom 
were  condemned  and  remained  condemned. 

It  was  exercised  in  the  third  century  by  Pope 
Zephyrinus,  against  Praxeas  and  Proclus,  Mon- 
tanus  and  Tertullian,  who  were  condemned,  and 
remained  condemned.  Like  Valentinus  and  Cor- 
donius,  these  heretics  tried  to  deceive  Rome;  but, 
like  them,  they  failed.  For,  as  Cyprian  already 
remarked,  in  point  of  doctrine,  Rome  can  neither 
deceive  nor  be  deceived. 

The  same  Pope  absolved  the  repentant  heretic 
Natalius,  who  approached  the  chair  of  Peter  in 
sackcloth  and  ashes,  craving  pardon  and  recon- 
ciliation. So  well  were  heretics  themselves  aware, 
before  what  tribunal  they  had  to  appear  in  order 
to  justify  themselves,  that  it  was  quite  unneces- 
sary for  Rome  to  send  them  a  formal  summons. 
As  Christians,  they  could  not  but  know  in  whom 
the  plenitude  of  Apostolical  power  resides. 

Pope  Cornelius  exercised  this  supreme  judi- 
cial prerogative,  in  the  third  century,  when  he 
condemned  Novatus  and  Novatianus,  who  accord- 
ingly 7'emained  condemned. 

Pope  Dyonisius  exercised  it,  in  condemning 


EXERCISING  THIS   PEEROGATIYE.         179 

the  errors  of  Sabellius  and  Paul  of   Samosata, 
^vhich  remained  condemned. 

By  this  Apostolical  autliority  Sylvester  con- 
demned Arius  and  his  heresy,  and  it  remained 
condemned. 

Even  such  as  had  not  embraced  the  doctrines  of 
Cliristianity,  had  heard  of  the  supreme  judicial 
authority  recognized  by  the  faithful.  Porphy- 
rins, a  heathen  philosopher,  who  edited  a  treatise 
against  the  new  faith,  speaks  of  Paul  reproaching 
his  Lord  and  Master,  Peter.  The  pagan 
writer  mistook  the  Peter,  of  whom  mention  is 
made  in  the  Acts,  for  Peter  the  Ai)ostle.  Yet  the 
expression  "Lord  and  Master,''  though  grossly 
misa])plied,  furnishes  us  a  convincing  proof  of 
the  dignity  and  power  conferred  on  the  Prince 
of  the  Apostles. 

Amianus  Marcellinus,  also  a  pagan  historian 
of  the  third  century,  adverts,  during  the  course 
of  his  remarks  on  Athanasius  and  Constantius,  to 
the  supreme  judiciary  autho'rity  of  the  Roman 
See  in  matters  of  faith. 

This  authority  was  exercised  by  Pope  Dama- 
SFS,  in  the  fourth  century,  against  ApoUiuaris, 
Timotheus,  Yitalis,  and  Priscillianus.  This 
Priscillian,  as  we  learn  from  the  account  of  Sul- 
pitius  Severus,  had  come  to  Rome,  to  clear  him- 
self of  the  charges  preferred  against  him— "u^ 


180  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

ohjeota  purgaref  But  the  Holy  Father,  sus- 
pecting his  insincerity  and  hypocrisy,  would  not 
admit  him  into  his  presence.  "  No  heretic,^^  re- 
marks Lupus,  "ever  beheld  the  countenance  of 
the  Pope,  before  recanting  his  errors  and  sub- 
mitting to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See/^  The 
pretended  reformers  of  Pistoja  experienced  the 
truth  of  this  remark,  at  a  much  more  recent  date. 

This  right  of  supreme  and  infallible  judiciary 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  was  exercised  in  the 
same  century,  by  SiRicius,  the  successor  of  Da- 
masus,  against  Jovinian,  whose  errors  were  con- 
demned, without  the  concurrence  of  a  Council, 
and  remained  condemned. 

Again,  this  right  was  exercised,  at  this  epoch, 
in  a  remarkable  manner,  by  Popes  Innocent 
and  ZosiMUS,  against  the  Pelagians.  When 
Pelagius  and  his  abettor  Coelestius  began  to 
disseminate  their  errors,  the  Bishops  of  Africa 
assembled  in  the  Councils  of  Carthage  and  Mel- 
evi,  and  addressed  themselves  to  the  Pope  for  a 
definitive  sentence.  Innocent  acceded  to  their 
wishes  and  commended  them  for  their  submis- 
sion to  the  Yicar  of  Christ.  "Their  conduct," 
remarked  he,  "was  a  proof,  that  they  under- 
stood their  obligations  to  the  Holy  See."  "J.d 
nostrum  referendum  esse  approhastis  judiciumy  sci- 
entes  quid  debeatur  Apostolicce  Sedi,^' 


EXERCISING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.         181 

Innocent  is  more  lengthy  and  explicit  in  his 
ans^ver  to  the  Council  of  Melevi :  "  You  have  fol- 
lowed/' wrote  he,  "  what  you,  as  well  as  I,  know 
to  have  been  the  practice  of  the  faithful  from  the 
beginning."  Antiquce  scilicet  regulm  fonnam  se- 
cuti,  quam  toto  semper  orhe  ineeum  scitis  esse  serva- 
tamJ^  "  From  this  Apostolical  fountain  perennial 
streams  are  pouring  over  all  the  provinces  that 
tliirst  for  the  waters  of  truth.  In  matters  of 
faith,  especially,  all  the  Bishops  should  emulate 
your  example,  and  refer  their  doubts  to  no  one 
but  Peter,  whose  authority  extends  over  all  the 
Churches  of  the  world."  "  Prcisertim  quotiesfdei 
ratio  ventilaiur,  arbitror  omnes  fratres  et  Episco- 
pos  nostros  nonnisi  ad  Petrum,  i.  e.,  sui  norninis  et 
honoris  audoreni  refer  re  debere,  velut  nunc  detulU 
vestra  dilectio,  quod  per  totum  mundum  possit  om- 
nibus Ecclesiis  in  commune  prodesse.^^ 

Even  the  authority  and  learning  of  such  men 
as  St.  Augustin,  who  lived  at  this  time,  can  not 
overbalance  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See.  As 
private  doctors,  they  may  be  entitled  to  the 
greatest  possible  respect;  but,  like  other  men, 
they  are  still  liable  to  err,  and  therefore  they 
have  no  right  to  make  the  faithful  adopt  their 
own  private  views  as  the  teachings  of  the  Church. 
St.  Augustin  was  well  aware  of  this.  Innocent 
and  Zosimus  certainly  did  not  possess  so  much 


182  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

genius  and  learning  as  he  did,  but  they  were 
invested  with  a  prerogative  which  he  did  not 
enjoy.  He  could  write  better  books  than  they 
on  the  Pelagian  heresy ;  but  he  could  not,  like 
them,  condemn  it  with  infallible  authority.  He 
governed  the  Church  of  Hippo,  which  had  no 
claim  to  the  Apostolical  prerogative  of  Infalli- 
bility; they  filled  the  See  of  Eome,  which  the 
Lord  had  promised  to  preserve  from  error. 

Pelagius  and  his  adherents  were  condemned 
by  the  Holy  See,  and  never  called  in  question 
the  authority  of  the  tribunal,  which  had  pro- 
nounced sentence  against  them.  Considering  the 
character  of  the  heresiarch,  who  was  ever  ready 
to  subtilize,  this  silence  alone  speaks  volumes 
in  favor  of  the  veneration  then  entertained  for 
the  dogmatical  utterances  of  the  Holy  See.  Here, 
especially,  the  axiom  of  Gregory  of  Naziane  has 
its  full  application :  ^^  IJpd^c^  i;r/,9a<Trc  d^S(uf)ca^.'- 
He  dared  not  have  recourse  to  fanciful  distinc- 
tions, as  the  Jansenists  in  modern  times  have 
done,  in  order  to  evade  the  crushing  weight  of 
the  Apostolical  censures  hurled  against  them. 
On  the  contrary,  he  sought  to  justify  liimself,  as 
best  he  might,  before  the  Pope,  whom  he  endeav- 
ored to  beguile,  by  a  feigned  submission  to  au- 
thority. A  written  explanation  of  his  conduct 
concludes  with  these  words :  "  If  these  our  writ- 


EXERCISING   THIS   PEEROGATIVE.        183 

ings  should  be  found  to  contain  any  erroneous  or 
rash  assertion,  we  submit  it  to  the  correction  of 
him  who  preserves  the  faitli  of  Peter."  "Emeu- 
dari  a  te  cupimus,  qui  Petri  fidem  tenes.^^  "  But 
if  my  profession  be  favorably  received  by  the 
Apostolical  See,  no  one,  who  will  continue  to 
find  fault  with  me,  can  fail  to  be  convinced,  not 
that  I  am  a  heretic,  but  that  he,  be  he  even  an 
Augustin,  is  certainly  not  a  Catholic." 

St.  Augustin  himself  relates  that  Coelestius, 
the  friend  of  Pelagius,  did  not  dare  controvert 
or  impugn  the  decision  of  Innocent,  but  tliat  he 
resolved  cm  going  to  Rome  and  condemning 
every  thing  which  the  Holy  See  would  condemn. 
Like  all  heresiarchs,  and  especially  those  of  the 
first  ages,  he  did  his  utmost  to  pass  for  a  Catho- 
lic, and  to  be  recognized  as  such  by  the  Apostoli- 
cal Authority  of  Kome.  His  journey  to  the 
Holy  City,  though  doomed  to  draw  uj)on  him 
new  curses,  brought  about  a  temporary  delay  in 
the  decisions  of  Zosimus.  The  forbearance 
shown  by  the  Pope  at  first  gave  offense  to  the 
Africans,  who  objected  that,  as  Innocent  had  al- 
ready condemned  the  teachings  of  Pelagius,  there 
was  no  reason  for  giving  Coelestius  another  hear- 
ing. Zosimus  met  their  complaints  with  the  re- 
ply, that  certainly  no  change  could  be  made  in  a 

*  Aug.  1.  ii :  de  pecc.  orig.  cap.  vii. 


184  TESTIMONY   OP   THE   POPES, 

decision  given  by  the  Holy  See  on  an  article  of 
faith ;  but  that,  as  Coelestius  had  appealed  to  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff  and  invited  his  accusers  to 
come  to  Rome  and  prove  him  guilty  of  the  con- 
demned propositions,  and  had  moreover  prom- 
ised to  retract  and  condemn  them,  should  he  be 
found  guilty,  it  was  necessary  to  avoid  all  pre- 
cipitation and  leisurely  examine  the  whole  matter. 

Having  satisfied  himself  of  the  complicity  of 
Coelestius,  he  confirmed  the  condemnation  of  the 
Pelagian  heresy,  in  that  remarkable  letter  from 
which  we  have  quoted  above,  and  of  which  St. 
Augustin  said  :  "Bescripta  venet^unty  causa  jinita 
est;  utinam  finiretur  et  eiTor!"  The  dispute  is 
at  an  end;  would  to  God  that  the  error  were 
also  at  an  end !  *  It  was  on  this  occasion  that 
Prosper  remarked :  "  Zosimus,  by  his  decision, 
has  armed  the  right  hand  of  the  Bishops  with 
the  sword  of  Peter.'' 

Making  use  of  this  his  prerogative  and  pleni- 
tude of  Apostolic  Power,  Ccelestin  condemned 
Nestorius,  and  he  7'erimined  condemned. 

Nothing  more  illustrious  and  authoritative  can 
be  imagined  than  the  dogmatical  letters  of  this 
Pope,  and  of  Pope  Leo,  condemning  Eutyches 
and  his  errors.  And  they  also  remaiKied  con- 
demned, 

*Serm  ii,  de  verb.  Apost. 


EXERCLSING   THIS   PREROGATIYE.        185 

Felix  III,  in  the  fifth  century,  exercised  the 
same  prerogative  of  the  Apostolical  See,  when 
he  condemned  the  errors  of  Accacius  and  of  Peter 
FuUo,  both  of  whom  remained  condemned. 

Agapetus  exercised  it,  in  the  sixth  century, 
against  Antinuis;  John  IV,  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury, against  the  ekthesis  of  the  Emperor  Ilerac- 
lius;  Theodore  IV  against  the  type  of  Paul  of 
Constantinople;  and  Agatho  against  the  Mo- 
nothelites — all  of  whom  remained  condemned. 

In  virtue  of  this  Apostolical  prerogative, 
Adrian  I,  in  the  eiiz:hth  century,  ])ronouncal  the 
censures  of  the  Church  against  the  Iconoclasts; 
Adrian  II,  in  the  ninth,  against  Photius  and  his 
followers ;  Leo  IX,  in  the  eleventh,  against  Mi- 
chael Cerularius  and  the  errors  of  the  Greek 
Church;  ViCTOR  II  against  Berengarius;  Greg- 
ory VII  against  the  Heuricians;  Innocent  II 
ajrainst  Abelard. 

St.  Bernard  and  the  Bishops  of  Soissons  had 
charged  Abelard  with  heresy,  but  they  dared  not 
condemn  him.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Pope, 
on  the  part  of  all  these  prelates,  the  Saint  gives 
expression  to  their  common  feeling  in  these 
words :  "  ^Ye  refer  the  case  to  thee,-'who  hast  the 
authority  and  the  power,  to  defeat  every  contrary 
opinion,  to  frustrate  every  effort  of  rebellion 
against  the  Lord,  and  to  subject  every  intellect 
16 


ise 


to  the  obedience  of  Christ/'  "  Et  in  captivitafem 
vedigendum  omnem  intellectum  ad  obsequium 
Christi.^  " 

The  Pope,  fully  conscious  of  the  duty  that  had 
devolved  on  him,  gave  his  decision  in  these  for- 
cible words :  "  Seated  on  the  Chair  of  Peter,  to 
whom  the  Lord  hath  said,  *  Confirm  thy  breth- 
ren,' we  condemn  the  propositions  of  Abelard, 
and  impose  on  him,  as  a  heretic,  perpetual  si- 
lence/' t 

In  virtue  of  this  prerogative,  Eugenius  III, 
in  the  twelfth  century,  pronounced  sentence  of 
condemnation  against  the  errors  of  Gilbert  of 
Parret;  XiSTUS  IV,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
against  those  of  Peter  Osma ;  and  Leo  X,  in  the 
sixteenth,  against  the  famous  "theses"  of  Martin 
Luther. 

The  arch-reformer  did  not,  at  first,  dispute  the 
right  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  On  the  contrary, 
he  acknowledged  it  in  terms  which  the  majority 
of  Protestants  would  probably  denounce  as  the 
profession  of  some  ultramontane  Catholic. 

As  Luther's  apostasy  from  the  faith  was  the 
gradual  result  of  his  unbridled  passions,  it  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  he  would  at  once  mani- 
fest that  fiendish  hatred   and  contempt  of  the 

*Ep.  192.  t  Cone.  torn.  10,  p.  1023. 


EXERCISING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.        187 

Holy  See,  for  which  he  and  his  followers  were 
afterward  distinguished  beyond  all  the  heretics 
of  earlier  times.  Hence,  it  need  not  surprise  us 
that  he  wrote  to  Leo  X,  "  Holy  Father  !  " 

"  Prostrate  at  thy  feet  I  offer  myself,  with  all 
that  I  am  and  all  that  I  have.  Vivify  or  des- 
troy, confirm  or  repeal,  sanction  or  condemn, 
just  as  thou  pleasest.  I  will  listen  to  thy  voice 
as  to  that  of  Christ,  who  lives  in  thee,  and  speaks 
by  thy  mouth.^'  ^'Prostratem  me,  O  pater,  pedi" 
bus  tuiSy  offero  cum  omnibus  quce  sum  et  haheo:  vi- 
vificctjOccide;  voca,  revoca;  approba^  reprobfu  ^d 
placuerit  ;  vocem  tuam  vocem  Christ i  in  te  prcvsi- 
dentis  et  loquentis  agnoscam,  dcJ^  "  I  protest,'* 
(how  different  this  protest  from  that  drawn  up, 
a  few  years  later,  by  his  adherents  I )  ^'  I  protest 
that,  by  all  my  words  and  actions,  present,  past 
and  future,  I  mean  to  render  homage  and  obe- 
dience to  the  Roman  Church."  The  world 
knows  how  he  kept  his  promise.  '^  Should  I  have 
said  any  thing  which  has  not  this  for  its  object, 
I  will  regard  it  and  I  desire  others  to  regard  it 
as  though  it  had  not  been  said,''  etc.  Protestor 
me  colere  et  sequi  Romanam  Ecdesiam  in  omnibus 
meis  didis  d  fadis,  prcesentibus,  prcderitis  et  Ju- 
turis.  Quodsi  quid  cditer  didum  fuerit,  pro  non 
dicto  habere  et  haberi  volo." 

In  a  book  entitled, "  Resolutio  Propositionum," 


188  TESTIMONY  OF   THE  POPES, 

and  written  in  the  year  1519,  we  find  this  sen- 
tence: ''The  whole  world  admits  that  by  the 
words, '  thou  art  Peter/  the  Pope's  authority  over 
the  Church  was  established."*  What  do  Protest- 
ants think  of  this  assertion? 

It  was  not  until  Leo  had  shown  himself  stern 
and  inexorable,  tliat  Luther  poured  out  a  torrent 
of  abusive  and  scurrilous  language  against  the 
Holy  See.  The  Pope  had  now  become  "  Anti- 
christ/' and  Rome  the  "whore  of  Babylon."  f 

Yet,  even  for  many  years  after,  whenever  his 
passions  subsided  a  little,  his  conscience  forced 
him  to  make  confessions  quite  incompatible  with 
his  own  new  doctrine,  and  that  of  Protestantism 
in  general.  Thus,  in  a  work  written  twelve  years 
after  his  separation  from  the  Church,  against  the 
Sacraments-Schwcermerj  that  is,  BeveUers  in  re- 
gard to  the  Saa^ammts,  the  apostate  monlv  makes 
this  reflection  :  "  It  is  an  awful  and  appalling 
thing  to  believe  and  teach  a  doctrine  at  variance 
with  that,  which  the  Church  has  believed  and 
taught  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  The  man  who 
does  so,  condemns  not  only  the  Church,  but  also 
Christ,  who  said  ^  I  am  wdth  you  all  days  even 
unto  the  consummation  of  the  world,'  and  the 


*Opp.  Jenens,  torn.  v. 
fLuth.  de  Capt.  Bab.,  1820. 


EXERCISING   THIS   PREROGATH^E.         189 

Apostles,  who  inserted  into  the  Creed  the  words, 
'  I  believe  in  one  hobj  Catholic  Church/  " 

It  was  thus  that  Luther  moralized  on  the 
errors  of  others.  But  as  soon  as  there  wa.s 
question  of  his  own,  he  completely  changed  his 
tone.  No  sooner  was  he  condemned  than  he 
forgot  all  his  former  protests  and  exclaimed: 
"What  do  I  care  whether  the  Popes  cry  out, 
^The  Church!  the  Church!  the  Fathers!  the 
Fathers ! '  The  Propliets  and  Apostles  have 
erred.  With  tlie  word  of  God  we  judge  both 
the  Church  and  Apostles." 

He  was,  at  last,  s<^  utterly  blinded  by  his  pas- 
sions, as  to  proclaim  his  own  infallibility:  "I  do 
not  care  for  a  hundred  texts  of  the  Bible,''  said 
he,  "and  if  you  find  that  my  doctrine  is  contrary 
t<i  that  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Fathers,  you 
must  know  that  I  care  not  for  all  thaf  And 
whence,  think  you,  did  he  derive  his  certainty  in 
matters  of  fliith  if  he  cared  not  for  the  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  Fathers?  "My  words,"  he 
tells  us,  are  the  words  of  Christ,  my  tongue  is 
the  tongue  of  Christ— I  am  certain  that  I  can 
not  err^  * 

What  do  you  say  to  that,  Protestants?     Are 

*See  the  History  of  the  Life,  Works,  and  Doctrines  of  Lu- 
ther, by  Audin,  1845. 


190  TESTIMOITY  OF  THE  POPES, 

you  prepared  to  subscribe  to  the  infallibility  of 
the  Arch-reformer  ?  You  certainly  recoil  at  such 
a  request,  and,  nevertheless,  you  can  not  refuse 
to  do  so,  if  you  admit  his  principles.  For,  ac- 
cording to  them,  not  only  your  master  but  you 
yourselves  are  invested  with  more  than  papal 
prerogatives.  The  genuine  Protestant  must  be- 
lieve  in  his  own  infallibility,  or  deny  all  certainty 
in  matters  of  faith.  He  claims  the  right  of  be- 
lieving what  he  holds,  is  the  word  of  God  con- 
tained in  the  Bible;  and,  therefore,  he  virtually 
makes  his  oivn  judgment  the  ultimate  criterion 
of  revealed  truth,  the  highest  infallible  tribunal 
in  matters  of  faith,  because  he  believes  that  he 
will  be  saved  by  faith  alone.  Therefore,  every 
logical  Protestant  practically  has  to  assert  his 
own  infallibility;  and  still  he  calls,  with  con- 
tempt, Catholics  Papists^  because  they  believe  in 
the  infallibility  of  the  head  of  the  Church.  What 
inconsistency !  This  very  name  of  Papists^ 
which  originated  with  Protestantism,  and  which 
is  meant  to  be  an  odious  appellation,  proves 
that  Protestants  are  aware  to  what  the  Catholic 
Church  is  indebted  for  her  strength,  nay,  for 
her  very  existence  and  spiritual  life.  It  is  the 
immovable  strength  of  its  Head  and  founda- 
tion, invested  in  the  authority  of  the  Roman 
See,    and    Papal    prerogative.     We,    therefore, 


EXEECISING  THIS   PREROQATTV^E.        191 

glory  in  that  name  of  Papists ;  for  we  remember 
the  words  of  St.  Ambrose,  "Where  Peter  is, 
there  is  the  Church."  "  Ubi  PetniSy  ibi  Ecclesia.'^ 
Yet  Protestants,  cut  off  from  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  adopted  soon  the  well-known  axiom, 
"  Ciijiis  est  regio,  ejus  est  religio."  The  Protest- 
ants, like  the  Russians  of  our  day,  transferred 
to  crowned  heads  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy 
See.  Even  a  woman,  who  chances  to  wear  the 
diadem  of  royalty,  thus  becomes  a  very  Pope  for 
the  deluded  partisans  of  error,  who  are  unwilling 
to  recognize  the  rights  of  Christ's  lawful  repre- 
sentative. AVhat  a  travesty  of  genuine  Chris- 
tianity ! 

Pius  V  and  Gregory  XIII  exercised  the 
prerogative  of  the  Papal  infallible  authority 
against  Baius,  whose  errors  were  condemned  by 
them,  and  reinained  condemned.  Urban  VIII, 
IxNOCEXT  X,  and  Alexander  VII,  in  the  sev- 
enteenth century,  exercised  it  against  the  errors 
of  Jansenius,  which  were  condemned  and  re- 
mained  condemned. 

As  Jansenism  is  one  of  the  latest  develop- 
ments of  error,  it  may  prove  of  interest  to  the 
reader  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  its  origin  and 
progress.  Its  history  furnishes  us  with  another 
evidence  of  the  strength  of  truth,  which  is  not 
afraid  to  meet  its  opponents  in  broad  daylight, 


192 


and  of  the  weakness  of  error,  which  never  dares 
to  appear  under  its  true  colors. 

Jansenius  himself  had  declared,  before  dying, 
that  he  submitted  all  his  writings  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Apostolical  See.  Yet,  after  his 
death,  his  errors  began  to  spread  with  such 
alarming  rapidity,  that  the  Bishops  of  France 
found  it  necessary  to  refer  the  case  to  Rome.  In 
their  letter  to  Pope  Innocent  X,  they  remarked 
that,  by  appealing  to  the  Holy  See,  they  followed 
the  practice  of  ages,  which  the  unfailing  faith  of 
Peter  will  never  suffer  to  be  abrogated.  ^^  Quern 
fides  Petri  nunquam  deficiens  perpetuo  ret'meri 
pro  Jure  suo  postulat^'  Their  appeal  was  soon 
answered;  for,  in  the  year  1653,  on  the  9th  of 
June,  the  Pope  condemned  the  erroneous  propo- 
sitions of  Jansenius. 

As  soon  as  the  Bishops  were  notified  of  the 
Pope's  decision,  they  addressed  him  a  letter  of 
felicitation,  in  which  they  remarked  that,  as,  at 
the  request  of  the  African  Bishops,  Innocent  I 
had  condemned  the  Pelagians,  so,  at  the  request 
of  the  French  Bishops,  Innocent  X  had  con- 
demned the  Anti-Pelagians,  namely,  the  Jansen- 
ists.  "The  judgment  of  the  Holy  See,'^  wrote 
they,  "has  a  divine  authority  throughout  the 
whole  Church,  and  every  Christian  is  bound  to 
submit  to  it,  in  all  sincerity  and  without  reserva- 


EXERCISING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.         193 

tion."  "  Oui  omnes  Christiani  ex  officio  ipsius 
mentis  obsequium  prccstare  tenentur.^'  "Congratu- 
lating you,  therefore,  by  whose  mouth  Peter  has 
spoken,  as  the  Fourth  OEcumenical  Council  de- 
clared he  had  done  by  the  mouth  of  Leo  I,  we 
cheerfully  and  uuliesitatingly  add  your  Decree 
to  the  Decrees  of  the  General  Councils." 

But  the  Jansenists,  with  the  view  of  eluding 
the  condemnation,  pretended  that  it  was  suffi- 
cient to  submit  exteriorly  by  keeping  "  an  obse- 
quious silence,"  while  interiorly  they  adhered  to 
the  same  heretical  princi])les.  This,  again,  was 
referred  to  Rome,  and,  as  every  Catholic  knew 
beforehand,  the  answer  was  soon  returned,  that 
this  feigned  submission  by  no  means  satisfied  the 
obligations  of  the  faithful  toward  the  Holy  See. 
"Obedient ice  Jidelium  erga  hanc  sedem  debitcc,  non 
satisjieri  obaequioso  silentio."  Hence,  the  formula 
to  which  all  the  Jansenists,  desirous  of  being  re- 
conciled, were  required  to  subscribe,  was  con- 
ceived in  the  following  terms:  "I,  N.  N.,  submit 
to  the  decisions  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  and  I 
reject  and  condemn  the  five  propositions  of  Jan- 
senius in  the  sense  intended  by  the  au- 
thor. So  I  swear,  and  so  help  me  God,  and  this 
His  Holy  Gospel.'^ 

The  fatal  blow  was  dealt  to  Jansenism,  which 
has  ever  since  remained  condemned. 
17 


194  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  POPES, 

Clement  IX  exercised  this  Apostolical  pre- 
rogative against  Paschasius  Quesnell ;  Innocent 
XI  against  Michael  Molinos;  Plus  YI,  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  against  the  Synod  of  Pistoja; 
and  in  this  our  own  century  Pius  YII  exercised 
this  his  supreme  judicial  and  Apostolical  au- 
thority against  the  adherents  of  the  so-called 
petite  Eglise;  and  Gregoey  XVI  against  De 
La  Mennais  and  Hermes. 

Finally,  Pius  IX  not  only  condemned  the 
errors  of  Guenther  and  Froschhamer,  but,  in  the 
full  consciousness  of  his  power  and  of  his  obliga- 
tions as  the  Vicar  of  Christ  and  the  divinely- 
commissioned  teacher  of  mankind,  censured,  in 
his  Syllabus,  the  false  opinions  taught  by  modern 
pseudo-philosophers;  the  dangerous  theories  held 
by  certain  naturalists  on  subjects  of  science;  the 
unsound  views  entertained  by  pretended  world- 
reformers  concerning  progress  and  civilization; 
the  extravagant  notions  carried  out  in  practice 
by  an  unchristian  liberalism ;  and  the  weak  con- 
cessions of  a  shallow  theology,  which  panders, 
through  a  mistaken  policy,  to  the  tendencies  of 
the  times.  Undismayed  by  the  hostile  attitude 
of  empires  and  nations,  he  taught  those  w4io 
boasted  of  being  the  most  profound  thinkers  of 
their  day,  that,  before  him,  the  expounder  of 
the  eternal  truth  revealed  by  God   to  men,  in 


EXERCISIXG   THIS   PREROGATH^E.         195 

order  to  teach  thein  the  way  of  salvation,  they 
are  as  mere  pupils  who  must  follow  the  directions 
of  an  unerring  master.  Armed  with  the  power 
of  the  Most  High,  he  fulminated  the  thunders 
of  his  anathemas  against  ail  who  dared  dispute 
his  decisions. 

Apparently  the  enemies  of  the  truth  and  of 
the  Church  might  scorn  the  threats  of  the  aged 
Pontiff,  but,  in  the  secrecy  of  their  hearts,  they 
marveled  at  his  superhuman  courage;  and,  if 
they  still  believed  in  the  revealed  word  of  God, 
though  they  might  have  been  dragged  along  by 
the  current  of  public  opinion,  they  now  began  to 
feel  uneasy  and  troubled  in  conscience.  The 
living  members  of  the  Church,  on  the  other 
hand,  rejoiced  and  thanked  the  Lord  that  they 
had  been  preserved  amid  the  anarchical  decom- 
position of  thoughts  and  principles  which  threat- 
ened the  destruction  of  all  order;  that,  while  so 
many  fed  on  the  poisonous  weeds  of  error,  Peter, 
ever  alive  in  his  Church,  nourished  them  with 
the  wholesome  food  of  unfailing  truth. 

But  the  occasion  on  which  Pius  exercised  his 
divine  right  and  privilege  in  a  more  decisive  and 
conspicuous  manner  than  ever  a  Pope  had  done 
before,  was  that  on  which,  by  his  own  authority, 
he  defined  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception uf  the  B.  V.  M.,  mother  of  God.     On 


196  TESTIMONY   OF   THE   POPES, 

tlie  8tli  of  December,  1854,  he  arose  from  the 
Apostolical  throne  of  Peter,  and,  surrounded  by 
more  than  two  hundred  princes  of  the  Church, 
proclaimed,  without  any  reference  to  their  opin- 
ion or  judgment,  that  the  B.  Y.  Mary,  mother 
of  Christ,  was  conceived  without  stain  of  original 
sin.  All  the  Prelates  of  the  Church,  absent  as 
well  as  present,  were  bound  to  submit,  and  did 
submit,  to  this  authoritative  decision ;  and  every 
one  who  would  have  dared  to  resist,  would  have, 
ipso  facto,  become  a  heretic. 

Now,  we  ask:  Was  Pius  IX,  when  he  pro- 
claimed this  revealed  truth  to  be  an  article  of 
faith,  conscious  of  his  infallibility  in  matters  of 
faith,  or  was  he  not?  If  not,  how  could  he  pro- 
nounce such  anathemas  against  all  non-believers, 
no  matter  how  exalted  their  dignity  or  how  great 
their  number.  Before  he  had  definitively  pro- 
nounced upon  the  subject,  fifty  of  the  Bishops 
thought  such  a  step  premature;  but  as  soon  as 
he  had  spoken,  all  orders  of  the  clergy  through- 
out the  whole  world  bowed  in  humble  submis- 
sion, and,  by  so  doing,  declared  their  belief  in 
the  infallible  authority  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

Besides  the  twelve  articles  of  the  Apostle's 
creed,  no  dogma  had  as  yet  been  defined  by  tlie 
Church,  unless  called  for  by  some  particular  her- 
esy, that  had  dared  to  attack  a  tenet  of  Catholic 


EXERCISING   THIS   PREROGATn'^E.         197 

belief.  In  this  ros|)ect,  therefore,  the  dogma  of 
the  Immaculate  Conception  might  be  called  the 
thirteenth  article  of  the  Creed.  It  certainly  is 
as  much  "  of  faith  ^'  as  any  article  of  the  Creed, 
because  it  was  proclaimed  in  virtue  of  the  same 
Apostolical  authority  which  has  been  transmitted 
by  St.  Peter  to  every  one  of  his  successors. 

There  is  something  strikingly  appropriate  in 
the  fact — a  charming  parallelism — that  the  ex- 
traordinary privilege  conferred  on  no  one  but 
Mary, was  made  known  to  the  world  in  virtue  of 
a  privilege,  likewise  bestowed  on  but  one  person, 
namely  St.  Peter,  who  is  still  living  in  his  suc- 
cessor, the  Roman  Pontiff. 

Considering  the  unbroken  chain  of  declara- 
tions and  exercises  of  their  Apostolical  authority, 
nobody  who  is  of  a  candid  character  will  ever 
assert  that  the  Popes  entered  into  possession  of 
this  their  right  and  prerogative  in  the  darkness 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  that  they  asserted  and 
exercised  it  from  the  beginning  of  the  Church — 
not  bestowed  on  them  by  the  Church,  but  by 
Christ,  through  Peter,  and  that  they  spoke  and 
acted  accordingly  in  the  face  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian world. 


VI. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  MOST  CELE- 
BRATED THEOLOGIANS  AND 
UNIVERSITIES, 

SINCE   THE   TIME   OF   THOMAS   AQUINAS,  MAINTAINING   THE 

INFALLIBILITY   OF   THE  POPE,    WHEN    SPEAKING 

"ex   CATHEDRA." 


With  St.  Bernard  the  age  of  the  Fathers  closes ; 
with  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bonaventura,  that  of  the 
Doctors  of  Divinity  opens.  The  authority  of  the 
Doctors  is  of  great  weight  in  determining  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church.  For  they  did  not  in- 
vent new  dogmas,  but  derived  all  that  they 
taught  from  Scripture  and  Tradition.  Hence 
we  find  that  upon  the  present  subject,  as  well  as 
upon  every  other,  their  doctrine  reflects  in  the 
(198) 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THEOLOGIANS.      199 

most  perfect  manner,  that  of  the  earlier  ages  to 
which  we  have  already  alhuled. 

We  shall  begin  with  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin, 
commonly  known  as  the  Angelic  Doctor — Doc- 
tor Angelicus.  Xone  is  ignorant  of  the  respect 
with  which  the  entire  school  of  Divinity  is  wont 
to  receive  the  dicta  of  this  prodigy  of  philosoph- 
ical and  theological  learning,  who  never,  per- 
haps, found  his  equal  among  the  children  of 
men  except  in  St.  Augustin. 

Treating  in  his  "Sum  ma  Theologise'^  of  the  right 
of  making  a  Symbol  of  Faith,  he  maintains  that  it  is 
the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  Pope,  the  successor 
of  St.  Peter,  for  whom  the  Lord  "  prayed  that  his 
faith  fail  not."  In  support  of  this  assertion,  he 
quotes  the  text  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians.* 

"  It  were  impossible,"  argues  the  holy  Doctor, 
"to  comply  with  this  injunction  of  the  Apostle, 
if,  when  a  diflPerence  arises  concerning  doctrinal 
matters,  the  controversy  were  not  settled  by  him, 
who  was  constituted  the  head  of  the  Church, 
that  so  the  whole  Church  might  unhesitatingly 
receive  his  decisions."  Quod  servari  nan  possit, 
nisi  qucesfio  fidei  exorta  determinetnr  per  eum,  qui 
toti  Ecclesice  prceest,  id  sic  ejus  sententia  a  tota  ec- 
clesia  fimiiter  teneaturJ^  f 

*  1  Cor.  i :  "  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  that  you  all  speak  the 
same  thing." 

fSum.  St.  Thorn.,  2,  2,  q.  i,  ar.  10. 


200      TESTIMONY   OF  THE   THEOLOGIANS 

In  another  part  of  the  Summa  he  reasons  thus : 
"  The  Church  can  not  err,  because  He  that  '  was 
heard  for  His  own  dignity/  said  to  Peter :  ^  I  have 
prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not/^  ^'EggU- 
sia  errare  non  potest,  quia  ille,  qui  exauditus  est 
in  omnibus  pro  sua  reverentiaj  Petro  dixit:  Ego 
rogavi  pro  te,  ut  non  dejiciat  fides  tua.^'  ^  It  is  es- 
pecially deserving  of  notice,  that  St.  Thomas  here 
infers  the  Infallibility  of  the  Church  from  that 
of  the  Pope,  and  not  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope 
from  that  of  the  Church. 

In  a  work,  ^^ Against  the  Greeks,"  in  which  as 
a  Doctor  of  the  Latin  Church,  St.  Thomas  stu- 
died above  all  to  avoid  every  appearance  of  ex- 
aggeration and  rhetorical  parade,  and  to  give  a 
plain  and  accurate  exposition  of  Catholic  doc- 
trine, we  find  the  following  passage :  "  Christ, 
who  received  from  the  Father  the  scepter  of  the 
Church,  so  that  all  ranks  and  conditions  must  do 
Him  homage,  likewise  gave  to  St.  Peter  and  his 
successors  the  fullest  power,  in  the  fullest  manner, 
so  that  He  delegated  to  no  one  else  His  full  au- 
thority." ''Et  Petro  et  ejus  successoribus  plenis- 
simam  potestatem  pleiiissime  commisit,  ut  etiam 
nidli  alii  quam  Petro,  quod  suum  est  plenum  ipsi 
deditJ'  Had  St.  Thomas  doubted  the  Pope's 
right  to  decide  authoritatively  on  questions  of 

*  Sum.  St.  Thorn.,  p.  3,  q.  25,  art.  2. 


AND  UNIVERSITIES.  201 

doctrine,  he  certainly  would  never  have  allowed 
himself  expressions  like  these.  For  if  this  right 
was  not  given  to  the  Pope  and  is  nevertheless 
possessed  by  the  Church,  it  must  have  been  given 
to  some  one  else  united  to  the  Pope.  But  such  an 
hypothesis  is  at  variance  with  the  assertion  of  the 
Saint :  "  He  gave  to  St.  Peter  and  his  successors 
the  fuUcfit  power  in  the  fullest  manner/'  and  "He 
delegated  to  no  one  else  His  full  authority.'' 

Let  us  listen,  next,  to  St.  Bonaventure,  whose 
appellation  of  "Seraphic  Doctor" — Doctor  Sera- 
phicus — is  sufficient  evidence,  that,  like  his  con- 
temporary and  friend,  St.  Thomas,  he  is  looked 
upon  as  "an  Angel  in  the  schools."  We  read 
in  his  "  Hexameron :"  "  Like  the  sun  among  the 
planets,  the  Popea7o?i6  has  the  plenitude  of  power 
over  all  the  Churches."  "  Solus  summus  Pontifex 
universal  iter  y  sicid  sol  super  planetas,  habet  plcni- 
tudinem  potestatis  super  omnes  ecclesias.^'  Mark 
the  terms  of  the  comparison.  St.  Bonaventure 
does  not  say,  "  like  the  sun  among  the  stars/^  but 
"  like  the  sun  among  the  planets.''  The  planets  are 
not  self-luminous,  but  shine  with  light  borrowed 
from  the  sun.  The  application,  which  every  one 
may  easily  make  for  himself,  will  serve  to  show  that 
St.  Bonaventure,  as  well  as  St.  Thomas,  infers  the 
Infallibility  of  the  Church  from  that  of  the  Pope.* 

*  Hexameron,  Serm.  21. 


202       TESTIMONY   OF  THE  THEOLOGIANS 

In  his  "  Sum  ma  Theologise,"  in  which  he  treats 
this  question  ex-  professo,  he  lays  it  down  as  incon- 
trovertible that  the  Pope  can  not  err,  provided 
that  he  teaches  as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  with 
the  intention  to  oblige  the  faithful  to  believe.* 
In  any  other  case  this  special  prerogative  is  not 
necessary  for  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  and, 
therefore,  not  necessary  at  all,  because  it  was  not 
conferred  on  St.  Peter  for  any  personal  advan- 
tage, but  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  whose 
very  existence  requires  the  strictest  Unity. 

These  two  leaders  of  the  theological  school,  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  have  been  followed  by  the 
most  eminent  theologians  down  to  our  time. 

In  proof  of  this,  in  order  not  to  be  too  diffuse, 
we  can  do  little  more  than  refer  to  the  works 
of  the  principal  authors,  unless  a  special  reason 
should  make  it  desirable  to  quote  their  words. 
We,  therefore,  mention,  among  others :  John  of 
Paris,  in  his  work  "De  Regia  Potestate  et  Pa- 
pali;"  Augustinus  Triumphus,  "  Sum  ma  de  Potes- 
tate Ecclesiastica ;"  Durandiis  of  Pour  gain,  "De 
Origine  Jurisdictionum,  seu  de  Ecclesiastica  Ju- 
risdictione  f  Petrus  Paludanus,  "  De  Potestate 
Ecclesiastica;"  Petrus  Bertrandus,  "De  Origine 
et  Usu  Jurisdictionum,  seu  de  Spirituali  et  Tem- 
porali  Jurisdictione ;"  Alvarus  Pelagiits,  Bishop 

*Bon.  Sum.  Theol,  I.    Art.  3,  D.  3. 


AND  TJNIVERSTTIES.  203 

of  Sylves,  "De  Planctu  Ecclesise;''  Joannes  Tur- 
recremata,  "  De  Sumrai  Pontificis  et  Generalis 
Concilii  Potestate/'  and  *^De  Ecclesia  et  ejus 
Auctoritate/' 

Even  in  the  East  of  that  epoch  there  were 
those  who  adhered  to  the  traditions  of  the  old 
Greek  Church  and  strove  to  bring  their  coun- 
trymen back  to  the  faith  of  their  forefathers. 
Among  these  we  may  rank  Bessarion  and  Joseph, 
Bishop  of  Modon,  and  the  Greek  monk,  Manuel 
CaUcas,  who  remarks  in  his  book  "Contra  Er- 
rores  Graecorum  :'^  "  There  have  always  been 
among  us  men  of  superior  learning,  who  con- 
demned our  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome 
as  extremely  foolish  and  at  variance  with  the 
faith  and  teaching  of  our  ancestors/^* 

George  ScholariuSj  in  his  Apology  of  the 
Council  of  Florence,  writes :  "  The  Bishop  of 
Rome  is  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ,  the  teacher  of  all  Christians.  Who  can 
deny  it  ?  Our  Savior  and  all  the  Doctors  of  the 
Church  proclaim  it  in  accents  louder  than  the 
thunders  of  heaven.'^  ^^Ucec  profedo,  quomodo 
qiiis  injieian  possit,  cum  apertissime  Christus  et 
omnes  doctor es  manifestius,  quam  si  toiiiti^  inso- 
naretj  hoc  ipsum  vociferanturJ^ 

Similar  expressions  are  made  by  Abraham  of 

*  Contra  errores  Graecorum,  1.  4. 


204       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THEOLOGIANS 

Crete,  in  his  Preface  to  the  translation  of  the 
Acts  drawn  up  by  the  Council  of  Florence,  and 
by  Philotheus,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  In  his 
answer  to  the  "Document  of  Union,"  sent  to 
him  by  the  Pope.  George  of  Thrapezunt  writes: 
"As  Christ  gave  to  Peter  the  keys  of  heaven, 
those,  who  reject  his  doctrine  and  leave  his  com- 
munion, shall  in  vain  exclaim,  ^Lord  open  unto 
us/  '^ — '^Domine  aperi  nobisJ^  John  Flusiadenus, 
Archpriest  of  Constantinople,  wrote  a  book  bear- 
ing the  title  "  DIalogus  pro  Synodo  Florentlna," 
in  which  he  enlarges  upon  the  Papal  right  of 
confirming,  examining,  directing,  and  correcting 
whatever  bears  upon  faith.  "Ipse  auctoritatem 
habet  confirmandi,  examinandi,  dirigendi,  d  cor- 
rigendi  quce  ad  fidem  pertinenV^ 

The  Infallibility  of  the  Holy  See  was  also 
taught  and  defended  by  Alphonsus  Tostatiis,  a 
writer  of  such  ability,  that,  according  to  Whar- 
ton, he  wrote  more  in  twenty-two  years,  than  an 
ordinary  man  can  attentively  read  during  a  life- 
time. We  refer  our  readers  to  his  commentary  on 
the  xvi  chapt.  of  St.  Matthew.  St.  John  of  Capis- 
tran  most  explicitly  defends  this  privilege  of  the 
Holy  See,  in  his  works,  "  De  Dignltate  Ecclesi- 
astica,"  directed  against  the  Hussites,  and  "  De 
Papse  et  Concilii  DIgnitate,"  against  the  Synod 
of  Basel. 


AND   UNTVEESITIES.  205 

;S^^.  Antoninus  distinguishes,  as  we  have  done, 
between  the  Pope's  opinions,  as  a  private  theolo- 
gian, and  his  dogmatic  utterances,  as  the  Yicar 
of  Christ.  "  The  Pope,"  writes  he,  "  may  err  as 
a  private  person;  but  he  can  not  err,  when,  in 
his  capacity  of  Pope,  he  defines  an  article  of 
faith."  He  even  goes  so  far,  as  to  stigmatize 
with  heresy  every  body,  who  disputes  the  Infal- 
libility of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff.  "Ulcere  quod 
in  hujusmodi  Papa  erraret,  esset  hereticumj^-^ 

The  heresy  here  spoken  of  must,  of  course,  be 
understood  as  interior ;  because  there  is  no  explicit 
definition,  which  makes  a  person  exteriorly 
chargeable  with  heresy  for  such  an  act.  The 
Saint  means,  that,  upon  this  subject  the  teaching 
of  the  Church  is  so  plain  and  unmistakable,  that 
no  one  can  maintain  the  contrary  without  ren- 
dering himself  guilty,  before  God,  of  a  culpable 
error  in  faith. 

John  Nauclerus  is  the  author  of  a  work  en- 
titled "  De  Monarchia,"  in  which  he  pronounces 
an  appeal  from  the  Pope  to  an  CEcumeuical  Coun- 
cil simply  ridiculous,  because  there  can  be  no 
CEcumenical  Council  without  the  Pope,  whose 
confirmation  is  necessary  to  give  validity  to  its 
Decrees.     To  appeal  from  the  Yicar  of  Christ  to 

*  St.  Ant.,  pars  iv,  lib.  8,  c.  3,  §  4,  and  pars  iii,  lib.  12,  c.  8,  g  3. 


206      TESTIMONY   OF   THE   TPIEOLOGIANS 

a  Council  is,  moreover,  according  to  him,  an  act 
of  rebellion,  that  falls  under  the  censures  of  the 
Councils  themselves ;  but  to  appeal  from  a  Coun- 
cil, however  numerous,  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  is 
a  privilege  always  allowed  and  conformable  to 
the  Canons  of  the  Councils. 

Cajetan  advances  the  same  opinion  in  his  book 
"  De  superioritate  Papse  super  Concilium ;  '^  and 
even  Et^asmus,  whose  varied  learning  the  Prot- 
estants of  his  times  tried,  by  every  means  in 
their  power,  to  secure  to  the  service  of  error,  sub- 
mitted all  his  writings  to  the  censure  of  the  Pope, 
whom  he  looked  upon  as  the  highest  exponent 
of  God's  authority  on  earth.* 

The  prerogative  of  Infallibility  claimed  by  the 
Holy  See  is  likewise  defended  by  MMiior  Canus, 
in  his  celebrated  work  "  De  locis  Theologicis." 
He,  too,  is  of  opinion  that  those  who  deny  the  In- 
fallibility of  the  Pope  in  matters  of  faith,  are  no 
less  guilty  of  interior  heresy  than  those  who  deny 
his  right  of  primacy  over  the  Church. 

To  this  series  of  celebrated  Divines  we  must 
add  Bellamvinej  "  De  Romano  Pontifice ; ''  f  Car- 


*  See  his  letters  to  Bishop  Christoph  of  Basel,  to  Morus,  Beda, 
Faber,  Melanchton,  and  to  the  Swiss. 

f  Indeed  we  were  morelhan  surprised  to  read  in  a  book  re- 
cently published  in  New  York  by  a  very  distinguished  author, 
who,  whilst  asserting  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  in  his  de- 


AND   UNIVERSITIES.  207 

dlnnl  Oromis,  "  De  irrefragabili  Romani  Ponti- 
ficis  auctoritate  in  definiendis  fidei  cx)ntroversiis ; '^ 
Francis,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  ''Apologia  pro 
Catholicis  ad  Jacobum  Britanniae  regem ; "  Cardi- 
nal Gotti,  "  De  vera  Ecclesia  Jesu  Christi ; "  3Ii- 
lante,  Bishop  of  Stabium,  '^Exerc.  19,  supra  pro- 
pos.  29;"  Fenelon,  Archbishop  of  Cambray,  "  In- 
structio  pastoralis ; "  Jacob  Serry,  "  Dissertatio 
de  Romano  Pont,  falli  et  fallere  nescio ;  "  St, 
Francis  de  Sales,  who  treats  the  subject, as  we  al- 
ready observed,  in  some  of  his  letters,  and  in  a 

cisioDS  on  matters  of  faith,  limits  its  sphere  in  such  a  manner, 
that  he  rather  seems  to  prove  his  fallibility.  But  it  is  quite 
inconceivable  how  this  respectable  author  could  go  so  far  as 
to  cite  Bellarmine  in  his  favor,  pretending  that  this  celebrated 
Doctor  of  Divinity  made  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  depen- 
dent upon  the  approval  of  a  General  Council.  Has  the  author 
ever  looked  for  himself  into  the  controversial  works  of  Bellar- 
mine ?  There  he  may  read  the  following  two  propositions,  as- 
serted and  defended  by  Bellarmine : 

"Summus  Pontifex,  cum  totam  Ecelesiam  docet,  in  his,  quae 
ad  fidem  pertinent,  nuUo  casu  errare  potest."  Lib.  4,  de  Po- 
test. Summ.  Pontificis,  c.  3. 

And  again :  "  Summus  Pontifex  simpliciter  absolute  est 
supra  Ecelesiam  universam,  et  super  Concilium  Generale,  ita 
ut  nullum  in  terris  supra  se  Judicem  agnoscat."  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  Bellarmine.  The  author  must  have  had  before  him 
an  entirely  corrupted  and  interpolated  edition,  when  he  wrote 
his  remarks  concerning  the  views  of  this  prominent  Theolo- 
gian. All  the  world  knows  that  Bellarmine  is  rather  consid- 
ered, by  friends  and  foes,  as  one  of  the  most  valiant  cham- 
pions in  defense  of  our  thesis. 


208       TESTIMONY  OF  THE  THEOLOGIANS 

manuscript  preserved  in  the  Bibliotheca  Clii- 
giana.* 

This  right  and  privilege  of  the  Holy  See  is 
also  defended  by  Antonius  Charlas,  in  his  "  Trac- 
tatus  de  libertatibus  Ecclesise  Gallicanse ;  '^  by  Cce- 
lestlnus  Sfrondati,  in  his  "  Regale  Sacerdotium ; " 
by  ChartieVj  "  De  infallibili  et  suprema  au-ctori- 
tate  S.S.  Pontificum ; '^  Bosevlnus,  "torn,  iv,  de 
Conc./^  Thyrsus  Gonzalez,  "De  Horn.  Pont.  Infal- 
libilitate;"  Troila,  "  De  Pontifice;''  Petrus  Mat- 
thcei,  "Summa  Const.  ;^^  Duval,  '^  De  Suprema 
Potest.  Rom.  Pont. ;  '^  Cahassutius,  "  Notitia 
Cone. ; "  Pitidier,  "  Dissertation  sur  le  Concil  de 
Constance."  To  these  series  of  Doctors  we  add 
the  illustrious  names  of  Sotus,  Suarez,  Niccnus  de 
Lyra,  Spondanus,  Thomassinus,  Ludovicus  Bail, 
Joannes  Buteanus,  Charmes,  Dominicus  Bannes, 
Berti,  Mansi,  and  Roncaglia,-\  who  all  unani- 
mously defend  our  thesis. 

Considering  the  weight  of  these  and  innumer- 
able other  authorities,  at  the  verge  of  the  eight- 
eenth century,  Sardagna  reasons  thus  in  his 
treatise  "  De  inerrantia  Rom.  Pontificis :  "  "  In 
theological  questions  which  involve  a  divine 
right,  we  are  obliged  to  follow  the  oldest  and 
most  common  opinion.  But  the  opinion  Avhich 
holds  the  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  in  matters  of 

*See  De  Maistre,  Du  Pape,  li.  f  Adn.  in  Nat.  Alex. 


AND   UNIVERSITIES.  209 

faith,  is  older  and  more  common  than  the  con- 
trary ;  for,  before  the  Council  of  Pisa  and  Con- 
stance, there  was  not  a  single  theologian  of  any 
note  who  would  have  ever  questioned  it.  In- 
deed no  one  could  have  done  so  without  being 
at  once  declared  a  heretic." 

The  causes  which  led  some  theologians,  after 
the  Council  of  Pisa  and  Constance,  to  advance 
the  novel  opinion  that  Infallibility  is  a  privilege 
peculiar  to  a  General  Council,  are  too  obvious  to 
be  mistaken.  These  Synods  which  assembled  at 
the  time  of  the  great  Papal  Schism,  with  the 
view  of  examining  the  claims  of  the  different 
nominees,  asserted  their  superiority  over  the  pre- 
tenders to  the  Chair  of  St.  Peter.  From  this 
circumstance  shallow-minded  and  partial  writers 
took  occasion  to  impugn  the  prerogatives  of  the 
lawful  Vicar  of  Christ.  Their  views  met  with 
especial  favor  in  France,  because  they  flattered 
the  ambitious  Louis  XIY,  who  was  resolved 
on  establishing  a  National  Church,  and  making 
himself  its  head.  Before  long  the  new  doctrine 
was  embodied  in  the  famous  "Four  Articles," 
which  tended  so  much  to  embarrass  the  action  of 
the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  until  they  were  finally 
condemned  by  the  Church. 

German  Febronianism  and  Josephinism  fa- 
vored these  Galilean  tendencies,  and,  with  strange 
18 


210       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THEOLOGIANS 

inconsistency,  represented  the  Apostolical  author- 
ity of  the  Holy  See  as  hostile  to  the  rights  of  the 
whole  Church  assembled  in  a  General  Council. 
How  illogical  and  utterly  untenable  such  an 
opinion  is,  will  appear  from  our  answers  to  the 
objections  commonly  raised  against  the  Infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope  by  autliors  of  this  class. 

Yet  the  immense  majority  of  theologians  wor- 
thy of  this  name,  also  after  the  Councils  of  Con- 
stance, and  the  schismatical  convention  of  the 
French  Bishops  in  the  year  1682,  invariably  and 
most  learnedly  defended  this  undeniable  preroga- 
tive of  the  Apostolical  See.  The  most  distin- 
guished of  them  are  MamachiuSj  "  Antiq.  Christ, 
et  in  lib.  contra  auctorem  opusculi :  Quid  est 
Papa,^^  (the  shameless  pamphlet  of  Eibel) ;  Zara- 
chiay  "  Antifebronius;^^  the  Brothers  Ballerini, 
"De  vi  ac  ratione  Primatus;"  St.  Alphonsus 
Liguori, "  De  Infallibilitate  Papre ;"  Devoti, "  Inst. 
Jur.  Ecc.  Romffi,  1824 ;"  De  Maistre, ''  Du  Pape ;" 
Muzarelli,  "Auct.  Rom.  Pont.,  etc.;"  Perrone, 
"  Prselectiones  Theologicse ; "  and,  finally.  Pope 
Gregory  XYI  (Capellari)  in  his  celebrated 
work,"  Triomfo  della  Santa  Sede.'' 

Other  authors,  balancing  between  human  re- 
spect and  duty,  professed  to  give  the  arguments 
for  and  against  the  subject.  Yet,  even  among 
these,  there  were  no  theologians   of  distinction 


AND   UNIVERSITIES.  211 

who  have  left  us  at  all  in  doubt  concerning  their 
own  opinion.  Like  Tournely  and  Lieberman, 
they  range  on  the  side  of  the  affirmative. 

To  this  well-nigh  unanimous  testimony  of  the 
theological  school  we  must  yet  add  that  of  entire 
Universities.  Before  the  Council  of  Constance, 
no  diversity  of  opinion  was  allowed,  u]X)n  tliis 
matter,  in  those  venerable  seats  of  theological 
learning.  We  may  easily  satisfy  ourselves  upon 
this  subject  by  referring  to  the  queen  and  leader 
of  all  the  universities,  the  Sorbonne  of  Paris, 
whose  teaching  was  the  standard,  to  which  all 
the  others  at  once  conformed.  Erasmus,  who 
was  certainly  well  acquainted  with  the  customs 
that  obtained  among  the  learned  of  his  day, 
compares  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Sorbonne 
over  all  the  Universities,  to  the  authority  exer- 
ci.sed  by  the  See  of  Rome  over  the  whole  Church. 
*^  Parisiensis  Academia  semper  in  re  theologica 
non  aliter  principem  tenuit  locum,  quam  Romana 
Sedes  Christiance  religionis  prlncipjatumy  Every 
one  was  confident  of  carrying  his  point  when  he 
could  say:  ''  The  Sorbonne  of  Paris  teaches  this; 
the  Academy  of  Paris  agrees  with  me,"  etc. 

Let  us,  then,  study  the  teachings  of  the  Sor- 
bonne, before  Louis  XIV  sought  to  concentrate 
in  himself  all  authority  in  Church  and  State. 

In  the  year  1320  this  celebrated  University 


212       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THEOLOGIANS 

condemned  the  propositions  of  Marsilius  Padu- 
anus,  who  taught  that  the  Pope  could  err  in  mat- 
ters of  faith.  In  the  year  1324,  the  University, 
having  united  with  the  whole  French  Church, 
under  Stephen,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  declared, 
"that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the  mother  and 
teacher  of  all  other  churches ;  that  she  is  founded 
on  the  unshaken  faith  of  Peter,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ,  who  is  authorized,  as  the  universal  judge 
of  Catholic  truth,  to  approve  or  reject  doctrines, 
to  solve  doubts,  to  decide  what  is  to  be  believed, 
and  to  refute  errors/'  "  Romana  Ecdesia  fideli- 
um  omnium  mater  est  et  magistra  in  firmissima 
Petri  Vicarii  Christi  confessions  fundata,  ad 
quam  velut  ad  universalem  regulam,  Catholicce 
veritatis  pertinet  approbatio  et  reprobatio  doctrina- 
rum,  dedaratio  dubiorum,  determhiatio  tenendo- 
rum,  et  confutatio  errorumJ^ 

Pierre  de  Aliaco,  who  presided  over  the  Sorbonne, 
under  Clement  VII,  affirmed  :  "This  is  the  faith 
which  we  have  been  taught  by  the  Catholic  Church. 
Should  we  have  advanced  any  rash  or  erroneous 
opinion,  we  hope  that  it  will  be  corrected  by 
thee,  who  hast  inherited  the  faith  and  the  See  of 
Peter.  We  are  aware,  and  we  firmly  believe, 
that  the  Apostolical  See  is  the  chair  of  Peter,  on 
which  the  Church  was  built,  and  of  which,  in  the 
person  of  Peter,  seated  on  it,  it  was  said  :  ^  Peter, 


AND  UNIVERSITIES.  213 

I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not.' " 
'^  Xon  ig  no  ramus  ysedjirm  iter  tenemus,  et  nullatenus 
dubitamus,  quod  S.  Sedes  Apostolica  est  ilia  Ca- 
thedra Petri,  supra  quamfundata  est  ecelesia  ;  de 
qua  sede  et  persona  Petri  in  eadeni  sedenti  dictum 
est :  Peire  rogavipro  te,  id  non  dejiciat  fides  tua.'^  * 

In  the  year  1534  tlie  Sorbonne  condemned  the 
propositions  of  John  Morandus  and  Marcus  An- 
touius  de  Dominis,  who  maintained  that  the 
Pope  is  not  infallible,  f  The  celebrated  Peter 
De  Marca  positively  affirms  that,  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  not  only  the  University  of  Paris, 
but  all  the  Universities  of  the  whole  world,  taught 
the  infallibility  of  the  Po{>e  in  matters  of  faith.  | 
The  same  thing  is  asserted  by  Petidler  in  his 
treatise,  ^'  De  Auctoritate  et  Infallibilitate  S. 
Pont.'' 

In  the  year  1544,  the  University  of  Louvain 
solemnly  anathematized  the  errors  of  Luther  by 
the  following  proposition :  "  We  must  firmly 
believe  that  there  is  on  earth  one,  true.  Catholic, 
and  visible  Church  of  Christ,  which  was  estab- 
lished by  the  Apostles,  which  has  outlived  the 
vicissitudes  of  ages,  and  "svhich  subscribes  and 

*See  Lib.  4,  Hist.  Univ.  Paris,  ad  an.  1387. 
f  See  Duval  and  Nauclems,  p.  4,  1,  8,  c.  6. 
J  Stephen  Baluzzi  in  Comp.  ejus  vitae  libris  de  Concordia 
praefixo. 


214       TESTIilONY  OF  THE   THEOLOGIANS 

clings  to  whatever  is  proposed,  or  will  be  pro- 
posed, in  matters  of  faith  or  religion,  by  the 
Chair  of  Peter,  on  whom  she  was  founded  by- 
Christ,  that  she  might  not  err  in  what  appertains 
to  faith  and  religion."  ^^  Fir  ma  fide  (yi^edendum 
estj  unam  esse  in  ierris  veram  atque  Catholicam 
Chrisfi  Ecdesiam,  eamque  visibilem,  quce  ah  Apos- 
tolis  fundata  in  hanc  usque  cetatem  perdurans  re- 
tinet  et  suscipit,  quidquid  de  fide  et  religione  tradit 
et  traditura  est  Cathedra  Petri,  supra  qiiam  a 
Christo  est  fundata,  ut  in  iis,  qucefidei  sunt  et  re- 
ligionis,  eiTare  non  possit.^'  The  University, 
therefore,  held,  with  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Bona- 
venture,  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Church 
results  from  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope. 

Taperus,  chancellor  of  the  theological  faculty 
of  Louvain,  bears  us  out  in  the  statement,  that 
no  difference  of  opinion  existed  in  the  schools, 
previous  to  the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Basel, 
the  real  aim  of  which  was  entirely  misapprehended 
by  a  few  weak  minds,  ready  to  dogmatize  before 
they  understood  the  point  at  issue.*  Gerson 
himself  concedes  that,  before  the  Council  of  Con- 
stance, any  one,  who  would  have  disputed  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Pope,  would  have  been  branded 
as  a  hereticf 

*  Tract.  Theol.  N.  6  et  7. 
fDo  Potest.  Eccles.Consid.  ii. 


AND   UNIVERSITIES.  215 

The  theological  faculties  of  Cologne  and  Sala- 
manca solemuly  professed  the  same  doctrine,  con- 
demning the  propositions  of  M.  A.  de  Dominis, 
as  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  Sar- 
dagna  and  even  Tournely  attest,  that  during  the 
eighteenth  century  all  the  Catholic  Universities, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  members  in  some,  that 
had  been  infected  with  Galilean  principles,  were 
all  defending  the  personal  Papal  infallibility  in 
matters  of  faith. 

Gallicanism,  Febronianism,  and  Jansenism, 
combined  with  those  revolting  blasphemies  of 
infidelity,  which  were  rife  during  the  time  of 
the  French  Revolution,  and  subsequently  the 
secularization  of  the  Church  in  Germany,  and 
the  wars  that  deluged  the  face  of  Europe  witli 
blood,  all  tended  to  convert  into  passive  tools 
some  of  those,  whose  learning  should  have  raised 
them  above  the  weakness  of  vulgar  minds.  But 
the  mist  which  hung  over  the  Church,  has  been 
rajiidly  vanishing,  since  the  day  on  which  Gre- 
gory XYI  rose  up  in  defense  of  Clement  Augus- 
tus, the  captive  Archbishop  of  Cologne.  At 
present  there  is  scarcely  a  single  theological  fac- 
ulty, which  would  tolerate  the  opinion  that  the 
Pope  can  err  when  teaching  the  faithful  in  His 
capacity  as  the  Head  of  the  Church.  The  pro- 
fessor may  still  lay  before  his  scholars  the  argu- 


216       TESTIMONY   OF   THE   THEOLOGIANS 

ments  ][)ro  and  contra;  practically  all  difference 
of  opinion  has  disappeared,  because  no  theologian 
would,  at  this  day,  dare  to  teach  an  opinion  con- 
demned by  the  Holy  See. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  '^Syllabus,"  quite 
a  number  of  eminent  Theologians  have  raised 
their  voices  in  defense  of  the  Papal  Infallibility, 
as  extending  to  the  teachings  of  the  Pope  com- 
municated to  the  Church,  by  such  decisions  as 
Pius  IX  and  others  of  his  predecessors  made  in 
regard  to  certain  doctrinal  propositions.  Among 
them,  we  notice  the  celebrated  Archbishop  of 
AVestminster,  Dr.  Manning,  in  his  work  "The 
Temporal  Mission  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  page  83; 
Dr.  Murray,  in  his  "  Dogmatical  Treatises ; "  Dr. 
Ward,  in  his  "Controversy  with  Dr.  Ryder," 
in  the  Dublin  Review  of  last  year  and  this  year; 
Rev.  S.  Schrader,  "De  Unitate  Romana;"  the 
series  of  dissertations  on  the  "Syllabus,"  pub- 
lished by  Father  Rles,  and  other  French  Jesu- 
its; the  explanations  on  the  "Syllabus"  by  Gury, 
Perrone,  and  Dr.  Torsi;  finally,  the  articles  in 
the  "  Civilta  Catolica,^^  published  in  Rome  itself. 
Meanwhile  not  a  single  theologian  rose  up  to 
teach  that  the  Pope  can  err  in  matters  of  faith. 
The  controversy  among  Catholic  writers  in  our 
times  refers  only  to  the  sphere  of  that  name, 


AND   UNIVERSITIES.  217 

which  we  thought  to  have  indicated  sufficiently 
by  the  very  title  of  this  one  book. 

"There  is  no  power  against  God/'  says  St. 
Paul;  and  we  may  add:  "There  is  no  power 
against  truth,  and  therefore  not  against  faith.'' 
A  truth  of  faith  may  be  for  a  time  obscured  by 
a  mass  of  jarring  opinions;  but,  like  the  suu 
peering  from  behind  the  clouds,  it  will  soon 
shine  with  increased  luster,  and  ^vrap  the  world 
in  a  blaze  of  light.  Such  has  been  and  is  tlie 
case  with  the  privilege  of  the  Holy  See  for  which 
we  contend. 


19 


VII. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND 
PEOPLES, 

ACKNOWLEDGING  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  ROMAN  SEE  TO  BE 
THE  HIGHEST  TRIBUNAL  ON  EARTH,  AND  THE  ROMAN  PON- 
TIFF THE  INFALLIBLE  JUDGE  IN  MATTERS  OF  FAITH. 


The  testimony  which  we  here  adduce  in  fur- 
ther support  of  our  thesis  is  not  lightly  to  be 
passed  over  as  of  little  weight  in  the  balance  of 
argument.  The  living  faith  which  actuated  prin- 
ces and  peoples  of  all  nations,  and  in  all  the  ages 
of  Christianity,  in  their  veneration  of  the  Su- 
preme Pontiff,  and  their  recognition  of  his  priv- 
ilege as  Supreme  Arbiter  in  matters  of  faith, 
carries  along  with  it  a  whole  world  of  witnesses. 
The  princes,  on  their  part,  had  no  undue  j>er- 
sonal   inducement   toward   such  a  recognition, 

(218) 


TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES.    219 

insLsmuch  as  they  were  taught  by  experience, 
that  the  Po{>e  was  ever  ready  on  occasion  to  use 
his  right  against  themselves,  and,  if  they  had 
consulted  a  narrow  and  selfish  interest,  they 
would  rather  have  been  led  to  over-exalt  the 
power  of  bishops  who  depended  purely  upon  them- 
selves, than  of  one  who  owed  them  nothing, 
and  had  less  reason  to  fear  their  influence  and 
power.  Nevertheless,  we  shall  see  how  many 
were  found,  who,  with  undiminished  reverence 
and  obedience,  submitted  tliemsolves  to  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  as  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  whose  faith  could  not  fail,  and  the 
Vicar  of  Christ,  the  eternal  truth. 

The  very  first  instance  that  we  adduce  to  usher 
in  the  long  line  of  princely  witnesses,  is  all  the 
more  striking,  inasmuch  as  it  is  one  of  the  still 
heathen  Emperors  of  Rome,  Aurelius.  While 
he  was  at  Antioch,  a  Synod  assembled  to  judge 
the  heretical  Paulus,  whom  they  deposed,  sub- 
stituting in  Ills  place  a  certain  Domnus.  The 
condemned  but  contumacious  Paulus  refused  to 
submit,  and  would  not  give  up  to  Domnus  the 
church  and  episcopal  residence  to  w^hich  he  had 
no  longer  a  right.  Aurelius  was  appealed  to, 
and  gave  for  decision  that  the  church  and  resi- 
dence should  be  made  over  to  him  whom  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  should  designate.    This  decision 


220   TESTIMONY  OF  PEIXCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

should  suffice  to  show  us  how  universally  the 
rights  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  must  even  then 
have  been  known  and  acknowledged,  since  a 
Roman  and  heathen  Emperor  was  acquainted 
wdth,  and  enforced  them.  Seventy  Bishops  aj)- 
peal  to  him  in  the  same  city  where  the  scandal 
oOfcurs,  and  yet  he  does  not  decide  for  himself, 
nor  refer  the  case  to  them,  nor  to  the  Bishops 
of  the  country,  but  orders  them  to  inform  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  and  abide  by  his  decision. 

So  great  and  imposing  is  the  weight  of  this 
fact,  that  there  were  Bishops  among  the  schis- 
matical  Greeks,  who  endeavored  to  find  therein 
the  first  rise  of  that  Primacy  which  was  after- 
ward recognized  throughout  the  world.  Of  such 
was  Leo  of  Acrida,  but  any  one  can  detect  the 
post  hoc  ergo  proptet-  hoc  of  this  inversion.*  No, 
it  was  not  an  invention  of  Aurelius,  who  would 
have  known  that  a  blunder  in  this  matter  would 
not  have  settled  the  difficulty;  he  evidently 
wished  to  terminate  the  dissensions  among  the 
Christians  by  appealing  to  an  authority  which 
they  were  bound  to  acknowledge.  As  Bossuetf 
justly  observes,  he  was  a  true  Roman  and  loved 
justice,  and  liked  to  see  Christians,  as  Christians, 
judged  by  their  own   usages — praxis.     It  was 

*  Lupus.  Scholia  viii,  103. 

I  Diseours  sur  1'  Histoire  Universelle. 


ACKNOWLEDGING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.    221 

this  widely  known  praxis  Christianorum  which 
was  the  inspirer  of  his  decision. 

When  we  find  a  heathen  emjieror  rendering 
such  a  decision,  we  need  not  be  astonished  that 
Constantine  the  Great,  the  first  Christian  Em- 
peror, should  have  called  the  decision  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff  "  a  heavenly  judgment,"  "  cceleste 
judicium,'^  and  have  cried  out  against  the  lament- 
able blindness  of  heretics  apixjaling  to  him  (the 
Emperor)  against  a  decision,  which  he  himself 
was  obliged  to  obey  as  a  "  cceleste  judicium.^^ 

It  has  been  justly  remarked  that  one  of  the 
most  illustrious  testimonies  to  the  superiority  and 
supremacy  of  the  Spiritual  Majesty  and  Authority 
of  the  Pope  over  even  imperial  dignity,  is  in  the 
remarkable  resolution  of  the  same  Constantine, 
on  becoming  a  Christian,  in  abandoning  Rome  to 
its  Pontiff,  and  building  for  himself  a  new  impe- 
rial city,  Constantinople.  He  felt  the  inconve- 
nience of  living  in  the  same  place  with  one, 
whose  power  eclipsed  his  own,  and  the  impro- 
priety of  the  Head  of  the  Church  residing  in  a 
city,  of  which  he  did  not  possess  the  sole  con- 
trol. In  this,  Constantine  showed  himself  a  true 
Christian,  and  gave  a  lesson  to  all  princes  of  the 
love  and  respect  which  they  should  pay  to  the 
Pontiff  of  Rome.  His  successors  in  the  West 
continued  to  give  the  same  wonderful  proof  \ji 


222  TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

Christian  sentiment.  For,  although  they  con- 
tinued to  claim  sovereignty  in  Rome,  where  the 
Senate  held  its  sittings,  they  themselves  resided 
at  Milan,  Ravenna,  or  in  other  cities,  even  farther 
distant,  as  Trier  in  Germany. 

Gratian,  in  the  year  383,  to  maintain  the  Supre-^ 
macy  of  the  Popes,  in  matters  of  faith,  issued  a  de- 
cree by  which  he  obliged  his  people  to  live  in  com- 
munion wdth  the  Holy  See.*  The  rule  by  which  he 
judged  the  orthodoxy  of  any  one  was  the  answer  to 
the  question  whether  he  held  the  same  faith  with 
Damasus — cmnplectere  doctrinam  Damasi.  He  re- 
buked the  heretical  aspirant  to  the  See  of  Constan- 
tinople to  his  face,  saying :  "  I  am  astonished  at  thy 
shamelessness  in  resisting  the  truth,  since  thou 
knowest  the  teaching  of  Damasus.^^  "  3Iiror  te 
tarn  impudenter  reslstere  veritati,  nam  probe  scias 
Damasum/'  etc.f 

The  same  testimony  was  given  by  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius  in  his  treatment  of  Flavian  and 
Is  ectarius.  The  Emperor  Honorius,  writing  to  the 
Emperor  Arcadius,  furnishes  the  same  evidence. 
That  of  Yalentinian  in  his  letter  to  Theodosius, 
the  younger,  is  yet  more  remarkable :  '^  Since  the 
Bishop  of  the  blessed  City  of  Rome,  on  whom 
antiquity  confers  the  supremacy  of  the  Priest- 
hood, has  the  office  and  faculty  of  judging  the 

*  Cod.  Theod.  xvi,  1.  1,  c.  2.  t  Butler  xviii. 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS   PREKOQATIVE.   223 

faith,  and  the  priesthood."  ^^Quoienus  beatce 
HomancE  eivitatis  Episcopus,  md  principatum  Sa- 
cerdotii  super  omnes  antiquitas  coiitulit,  locum 
habeat  et  facuUatem  de  fide  et  sacerdotibus  judi- 
care."^  Therefore,  it  is,  he  says,  that  the  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople  has  addressed  himself  to 
the  Pope  concerning  the  controversy  that  has 
arisen  relating  to  the  faith.  ^Propter  contention 
nemy  quce  orta  est  de  fideJ'  He  did  even  more ; 
he  wrote  to  the  Prefect  of  Gaul,  that  all  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  were  to  be  re- 
garded and  obeyed  in  the  Courts  of  that  Province 
and  elsewhere  in  his  dominions,  as  if  they  were 
imjx^rial  laws.  ^'  Sed  illisy  omnibiisque  pro  lege 
sity  quidquid  dixerit  vel  sanxerit  Apostolicce  Sedis 
Auctoritas.'^  He  gives  for  reason,  that  since  the 
time  of  Constantine,  all  the  Christian  Emperors 
had  considered  themselves  the  protectors  of  the 
Holy  See.  What  a  beautiful  and  striking  ex- 
ample for  our  own  times,  and,  alas,  what  a  dif- 
'ference  between  princes !  He  explains,  that 
while  he  loves  to  sanction  the  Apostolical  decis- 
ions, it  is  not  with  a  view  of  adding  to  the 
authority,  which  they  have  in  all  fullness  from 
the  Pope,  but  only  that  he  may  the  more  effica- 
ciously bring  the  refractory  to  their  duty.  ^'Sed 
nostram  quoque  prceceptionem  Jicec  ratio  prcyvoca- 

*  Baron,  ad  an.  407. 


224   TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

vitj  ne  ulterius  unquam  aUeri  liceat  prceceptis  Ro- 
mani  Pontificis  ohviare.^^  Those  Emperors  of  old 
had  not  as  yet  dreamed  of  a  '^ j^^^^^^'^'^  regium  !  " 
Most  pertinent  and  confirmatory  is  that  asser- 
tion of  Valentinian  in  this  same  Edict :  "  Peace 
would  reign  throughout  the  Church,  if  all  would 
acknowledge  bat  the  one  ruler."  "J'wnc  enim 
omnium  Ecdesiarufh,  pax  ubique  servardur,  si  reo- 
torem  unum  agnoscatJ^ 

Yes,  that  is  the  reason  why  the  Eight  and  Pri- 
vilege in  question  was  conferred  on  one,  so  that 
unity  and  peace  might  be  preserved  for  all.  In 
this  the  Emperor  agrees  with  St.  Cyprian,  who 
had  said  :  "  All  the  trouble  of  sects  and  schisms 
arises  from  the  sole  fact,  that  heretics  and  schis- 
matics do  not  submit  to  the  one  Judge,  holding 
the  place  of  Christ." 

How  plainly  and  decidedly  this  privilege  was 
recognized  by  Marcian  and  by  the  accomplished 
Empress  Pulcheria,  we  have  already  pointed  out 
when  treating  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of 
Chalcedon. 

Justin,  writing  to  the  Pope  by  the  hand  of  his 
Minister  and  successor  Justinian,  says :  ''  This 
we  hold  to  be  the  Catholic  truth,  what,  namely, 
thy  answer  shall  make  known  to  us."  ^'Hoc  enim 
credimus  esse  Catholicum,  quod  Vestro  responso 
nobis  fuerit  intimatum,'' 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    225 

This  was  the  faith  and  the  language  of  Em- 
perors living  before  the  time  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  in  those  ages,  namely,  when  Protestants 
concede  the  Church  to  have  been  free  from  error. 
The  same  sentiments  were  held  by  the  Eastern 
Emperors,  who  stood  in  no  need  of  tempoml  help 
from  the  Pope,  and  who,  had  they  liked,  could 
have  used  to  their  advantage  the  jealousy,  more 
or  less  prevalent,  of  the  Patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople, or  of  the  "  New  Rome,"  as  it  was  called. 
Justinian  himself,  when  Emperor,  wrote  to  Hor- 
midas,  Poj>e :  *'  The  unity  of  the  Churches  is  based 
upon  the  doctrine  and  authority  of  your  Aposto- 
late."  *  '*  Unitas  Ecclesiatmm  per  doctrinam  et 
auctorUatem  Apostolatiis  Vestri  provenitj^ 

To  the  Patriarch  Mennas  he  says:  ^'All  must 
be  referred  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and  the  more 
especially,  because,  when  heresies  have  arisen, 
they  have  been  extinguished  by  the  sentence  and 
judgment  of  that  Venerable  See.''  f  "^  max- 
ime,  quod,  quoties  hcerdicl  pidlularunt,  et  sententia 
et  judicio  ilUus  Venerabilis  Sedis,  coerciti  sutit.'^ 

Writing  to  Pope  John  II,  he  says,  that  he  had 
abandoned  to  him  ever>'  thing  relating  to  the 
Church,  and  he  received  in  return  the  praise  of 
the  Pope,  because  in  that  he  had  done  his  didyJ' 

♦Ballerini  de  Vi  ac  Ratione  Prim.,  p.  208. 
■}■  Cod.  de  Summ.  Triuit.,  i. 


226   TESTIMONY  OP  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

Later,  it  is  true,  when  giving  away  to  passion, 
we  find  him  behaving  with  shameful  violence  to- 
ward Pope  Vigil,  but  at  the  same  time,  as  we 
before  mentioned,  we  did  not  believe  that  he 
could  act  validly  without  his  sanction,  even 
though  supported  as  he  thought  he  was  by  the 
Bishops  of  the  Fifth  (Ecumenical  Council. 

The  acknowledgment  of  this  Right  and  Prerog- 
ative of  the  Pope,  as  made  by  Phocas  the  Em- 
peror, was  so  clear  and  explicit,  that  Luther 
with  the  Centuriators  of  Magdeburg,  have  en- 
deavored to  ascribe  to  this  Emperor  the  rise  of 
this  doctrine  in  the  Church.  It  was  in  the  same 
spirit,  and  with  the  same  lack  of  judgment,  that 
Leo  of  Acrida  ascribed  its  origin  to  the  answer 
of  Aurelius. 

King  Childebert  of  France  in  his  embassy  to 
Pope  Vigil,  and  King  Athelbert  of  England  in 
his  legation  to  Poj)e  Boniface  IV,  recognized  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Holy  See  in  matters  of  faith 
and  discipline.  To  the  latter  the  Pope  answers 
in  the  strongest  manner :  "  If  any  King  succeed- 
ing, or  any  Bishop,  Clergyman,  or  laic,  shall  essay 
to  infringe  the  decrees  of  the  Popes,  he  should 
incur  the  anathema  of  Peter  and  of  all  his  suc- 
cessors." ^^Quce  ea  dea-eta,  si  quis  successomm 
regumy  sive  episGopormrij  sive  elericorum,  sive  loi^ 
corum  irrita  facere  tentaverit,  a  Principe  Aposto- 


ACKNOWLEDGIKG  THIS  PREEOGATIVE.   227 

lomim  Petro  et  a  cundis  successoribus  siiis  ana- 
thematis  gladio  siibjaceat.'^  *  Englishmen  of 
our  days  may  see  here,  how  ancient  is  the 
language  which  Popes  use  to  declare  their  rights, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  how  different  the  obe- 
dience which  is  paid  to  them  since  the  days  of 
Henry  VIII.  Is  it  not  manifest  that  their  fore- 
fathers must  have  professed  a  far  different  faith, 
and  tliat  it  is  they  themselves,  not  the  Popes  who 
have  changed  ?  A  solemn  acknowledgment  was 
made  of  this  supremacy  by  Oswin,  of  Northum- 
berland, and  Egl)ert,  King  of  Kent,  in  their  de- 
legation of  Wighard,  elected  by  themselves  and 
the  whole  Episcopacy  and  Clergy  of  England, 
to  refer  to  the  Pope  the  question  of  the  Paschal 
celebration,  in  which,  although  they  maintained 
that  their  practice  was  derived  from  St.  John,  the 
Apostle,  they  submitted  themselves  to  the  decrees 
of  Rome.  Soon  after  this  date,  we  find  Ceadi- 
valla,  Kenred,  and  Offa  making  pilgrimages  to 
Rome  to  pay  personal  homage  to  the  Vicar  of 
Christ  and  receive  his  immediate  instructions. 
King  Knulph,  Offa's  successor,  imitated  in  his 
day  the  example  of  the  royal  pilgrim,  his  pre- 
decessor. 

When   speaking    of  the    Sixth    CEcumenical 

*  Hard.,  torn,  iii,  p,  544. 


228    TESTIMONY   OF   PRINCES   AND   PEOPLES, 

Council,  we  made  mention  of  the  testimony  of 
Constantine  Pogonatus,  and  we  now  join  to  him 
the  record  of  Anastasius,  who  sent  his  profession 
of  faith  to  Korae,  as  to  the  surest  and  highest  tri- 
bunal of  truth;  so,  too,  the  Empress  Irene  and 
her  son  and  heir,  as  we  have  already  observed, 
when  treating  of  the  Seventh  General  Council. 

Pepin's  devotion  and  submission  are  so  well 
known  that  we  need  only  allude  to  the  fact. 
Scarcely  less  devoted  were  the  sentiments  of  Char- 
lemagne, as  exhibited  in  his  "  Capitularia,^'  and  in 
the  so-called  "  Caroline  books,"*  where  he  makes 
open  and  explicit  profession  of  his  faith  in  the 
Holy  See  as  the  Supreme  Tribunal  of  faith  on 
earth. 

Louis  the  Pious,  son  of  Charlemagne,  walked 
in  the  footsteps  of  his  illustrious  father,  as  we 
may  easily  gather  from  his  Constitution  :  Ego  Lu- 
donicus  et,  etc.,  and  from  his  address  to  the  Bish- 
ops of  Thionville,  and  from  his  Capitular  of  the 
year  823.  He  even  referred  the  division  of  his 
empire  to  the  Pope's  confirmation,  and  from  that 
time  it  became  the  usage  and  practice  that  the 
Franco-Roman  and  German  Emperors  became 
such  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff and  on  being  crowned  by  him.     Nor  was  this 

*  L.  66,  vii,  364,  c.  6. 


ACKNOWLEDGING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.    229 

the  case  with  the  Emperors  of  the  West  alone, 
for  the  kings  of  England,  Poland,  Hungary', 
Croatia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark  loved  to  receive 
their  crowns  at  his  hands,  and  to  place  their  do- 
minions under  the  especial  guarantee  and  protec- 
tion of  the  Holy  See. 

We  avoid,  here,  all  question  of  political  right, 
convention,  or  compromise.  We  merely  point 
out  the  historical  fact  as  evidence  in  what  esti- 
mation the  peoples  and  princes  of  those  days 
held  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  with  what  venera- 
tion they  looked  upon  him  as  the  Vicar  of  Christ 
and  the  Supreme  Arbiter  of  all  on  earth,  accord- 
ing to  the  saying,  "  He  who  is  competent  to  the 
greater,  is  also  competent  to  the  less."  Enlight- 
ened by  faith,  they  saw  an  order  established  on 
earth  by  Divine  Providence,  on  such  a  basis  and 
with  such  an  extent  of  power,  that  if  peoples 
and  princes  were  but  willing  to  submit  to  it,  they 
would  find  eternal  peace  and  the  settlement  of 
every  controversy  in  the  decision  of  the  common 
Father  of  all  the  Faithful,  the  Successor  of  St. 
Peter,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  Supreme  Pastor  and 
Head  of  the  Church. 

This  ideal  of  Christian  order,  o£  which  De 
Maistre  speaks  so  beautifully  in  his  work,  "Du 
Pape,"  is  so  truly  attractive  that  even  a  Voltaire^ 
forgetting  himself  for  awhile,  can   not  refrain 


230   TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  ANbI  PEOPLES, 

from  paying  to  it  a  tribute  of  praise  and  homage. 
In  his  ^^Essai  sur  les  Moeurs/'  he  proves  by 
many  historical  examples,  that  not  only  the 
kings  of  Denmark,  but  all  other  Christian 
princes,  were  in  common  in  considering  the 
Pope  to  be  a  Judge  between  them  and  their 
people;  and  in  his  "Essai  sur  F  Histoire  Gene- 
rale,"  he  has  these  remarkable  words,  by  which 
he  acknowledges  the  salutary  advantages  of  such 
a  tribunal :  "  The  interests  of  mankind  demand 
a  bridle  by  which  princes  may  be  restrained,  and 
the  people  saved.  This  bridle  might  by  com- 
mon consent  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Ro- 
man Pontiifs.  Such  a  High  Priest,  mingling  in 
worldly  conflicts  only  to  silence  them,  admonish- 
ing alike  the  sovereign  and  his  people  of  their 
duties,  condemning  their  crimes,  and  visiting 
his  excommunication  on  great  wrongs,  would  be 
looked  upon  as  the  living  representative  and 
likeness  of  God  upon  the  earth." 

How  deeply  that  feeling  of  submission  of  princes 
and  peoples  in  temporal  things  was  rooted  in  the 
veneration  which,  as  Christians,  they  had  for  the 
Pontiff  in  spiritual  matters,  is  made  strikingly 
evident  in  the  letter  of  David,  Emperor  of  Ethi- 
opia, converted  to  the  true  faith  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  He  writes  to  Pope  Clement  VII  as  fol- 
lows: "  Why,  O  Holy  Father,  do  you  not  make 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.   231 

all  Christian  princes,  who  are  thy  sons,  lay  down 
their  arms  and  live  in  peace,  as  becomes  those 
who  are  brethren,  since  they  are  thy  sheep,  and 
thou  art  their  shepherd  ?  "  Why  ?  The  fault  is 
their  own.  They  listen  no  more  to  the  voice  of 
Christian  feeling. 

As  for  himself,  the  Emperor  makes  the  fol- 
lowing beautiful  profession  of  faith:  "As  thou 
art  the  Head  of  all  the  Bishops,  and  the  Teacher 
of  the  faith,  I  obey  thee  with  reverence ;  and  as 
thou  art  the  peace  of  all,  it  is  but  just  that  all 
should  obey  thee."  "  Pat^r  Sancte,  qui  es  caput 
Pontificum  omnium,  magister  fidei,  ego  tibi  r eve- 
renter  obedio,  cum  sis  pax  omnium,  ita  cequum 
est,  ut  omnes  tibi  obedientiam  pr(Est€ntJ'^  Is  it  not 
lamentable  that  the  princes  of  our  own  so-called 
civilization  seem  not  to  perceive  the  logic  of  that 
Christian  feeling  which  made  the  Ethiopian  Em- 
peror give  utterance  to  such  sentiments? 

To  return  to  our  chronological  series,  Basilius, 
the  Emperor,  evidently  acknowledged  this  pre- 
rogative of  the  Roman  Pontiff  when  he  referred 
to  him  for  decision  the  case  of  Photius  and  the 
clergy  ordained  by  him.  Charles  the  Bald  ex- 
presses the  same  belief  and  sentiments  in  his 
Chapters.*  So,  too,  King  Ethel wulf  and  his  son 
Alfred  the  Great,  of  England,  especially  in  his 

*  Lupus  viii,  81. 


232   TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

letters  to  the  Pope  asking  the  confirmation  of  his 
University  at  Oxford.  Otto,  King  of  the  Ger- 
mans, and  Louis  of  France  give  expression  to 
the  same  belief  at  the  Synod  of  Ingelheim. 

Hugh  Capet,  King  of  France,  with  all  the 
Bishops  of  his  kingdom,  addressing  the  Pope  in 
relation  to  Arnulph  of  Rheims,  says :  "  Be  pleased 
to  order,  thou  who  holdest  the  place  of  the  Apos- 
tles, what  we  have  to  do  with  the  new  Judas, 
and  prescribe  to  us  a  form  of  judgment/'  The 
Bishops  joined  their  supplications  to  that  of  the 
King  and  wrote:  "Help  the  falling  Church; 
may  we  experience  in  thee  another  Peter,  the 
defender  and  confirmer  of  Christian  faith/' 
'^AdestOj  Pater,  ruenti  Ecclesice,  sentiamus  in  vo- 
bis  alterum  Petrum,  defensorem  et  corroboratorem 
ChristiancE  fideV^  * 

The  same  prerogative  was  acknowledged  in 
the  Roman  See  by  his  successors  Robert  and 
Otto  II,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  "  Memorandum  " 
of  the  Abbe  of  Fleury. 

Still  more  to  the  point  is  the  document  in 
which  Henry  II  confirmed  the  right  to  the  ter- 
ritorial possessions  of  the  Holy  See.  An  inter- 
esting incident  of  his  life  occurs  to  us  in  this 
connection.  Being  at  Rome,  he  noticed  that  the 
Credo  was  not  sung  there.     On  asking  the  rea- 

*  Hard,  vi,  730. 


ACKNOWLEDGING   THIS   PREROGATIVE.    233 

son,  he  received  for  answer  that  the  Roman 
Church  had  never  deviated  from  the  path  of 
truth,  but  had  remained  unshaken  in  the  faith 
of  St.  Peter.*  "  Quod  Romcuia  Ecdesia  .  .  . 
non  fuisset  aUquando  idla  hceresi  infeciay  sed  se- 
cundum Petri  doctrinam  in  soliditate  CcUhoUcce 
jidei  pefi-niianerd  inconcussa." 

As  regards  the  Kings  of  Poland,  every  histo- 
rian is  aware  with  what  unshaken  fidelity,  after 
the  deviation  of  Casimir  to  the  throne,  they  ad- 
hered to  the  Roman  See. 

This  prerogative  was  solemnly  acknowledged 
by  Henry  II  of  France  in  the  case  of  Biiino, 
Bishop  of  Orleans ;  and  not  less  so  by  Henr}^  III, 
and  by  Ferdinand,  King  of  Spain,  to  Victor  II ; 
as  also  by  Edward,  King  of  England,  to  Leo 
IX  and  Nicolas  II.  The  attestations  and  let- 
ters of  the  Kings  Heisa,  Salomon,  and  Ladislas 
of  Hungary,  of  Suenos  and  Erich  of  Denmark, 
Wratislas  of  Bohemia,  the  Czar  Demetrius  of 
Russia,  King  Anzir  of  Mauritania,  Demetrius, 
Duke  of  Croatia,  Michael,  King  of  Sclavonia,  and 
of  Philip  of  France,  we  merely  mention  to  refer 
the  reader  for  fuller  detail  to  the  pages  of  the 
general  historian.f 

Even  during  the  protracted  struggle  between 
the  Roman  Pontiffs  and  the  Emperors  of  Ger- 

♦Baronius  ad  an.  1114.  fHard.  vi.  Baron,  in  12  saec. 

20 


234   TESTIMONY   OF   PRINCES   AND   PEOPLES, 

many,  this  privilege  in  matters  of  faith  was 
never  disputed  even  by  the  Pope's  most  embit- 
tered enemies.  This  is  made  evident  by  no  less 
testimony  than  that  of  Veneri  of  Vercelli,  the 
fierce  partisan  of  Henry  IV. 

When  one  of  the  faction  of  this  same  Henry 
attempted  to  impugn  this  spiritual  prerogative 
of  the  Pope,  during  the  Synod  of  Quedlinburg, 
he  was  at  once  condemned  by  the  Synod.  Henry 
himself,  when  attending  to  the  voice  of  his  con- 
science, deprecated  before  the  Pope  the  crime  of 
his  own  disobedience.  His  son  Henry  V,  as 
we  are  told  by  Conrad  of  Arsberg,  condemned 
the  errors  of  his  father  and  professed  unlimited 
submission  to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See. 

Objections  may  be  taken,  as  is  sometimes  done, 
from  the  right  of  interference,  claimed  by  the 
Emperors  in  the  Papal  election.  The  only  prin- 
ciple, in  such  cases,  capable  of  defense,  is  the  pro- 
priety of  a  mutual  concord  and  assistance  of  the 
two  powers,  spiritual  and  temporal,  in  so  univer- 
sally important  an  action.  When,  however,  as 
in  the  election  of  Alexander  II,  we  hear  the  Im- 
perial Commissioner  asserting  that,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Emperor,  no  Pope  could  be  le- 
gitimately elected,  we  find  the  assertion  rebutted 
by  the  question :  What  part  had  the  Emperor  in 
the  election  of  Pope  Stephen,  Sixtus,  Corne- 


ACKNOWLEDGIXG  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    235 

Lius,  Damasus,  Colestin,  Boniface?  etc., 
and  the  simple  question  suffices  to  silence  the 
Imperial  Commissioner. 

The  real  answer  to  such  an  objection  is  to  be 
found  in  that  of  Louis  VII,  King  of  France,  to 
the  Emperor  Frederick.  The  latter  had  set  up  an 
anti-Pope,  and  had  written  to  the  French  mon- 
arch to  solicit  his  adherence,  and  to  engage  him 
to  urge  that  of  the  Bishops  of  his  kingdom. 
Louis  answered  the  Imperial  Embassadors  that, 
"he  wondered  that  the  Emperor  could  speak  so 
foolishly.  Was  he  ignorant  that  Christ  had 
committed  his  whole  flock  to  Peter?  Are  Em- 
perors or  Kings  excepted  in  the  Gospel,  or  do 
my  Bishops  not  belong  to  the  Hock  of  Peter?'' 

However  much  Kings  and  Emperors  may 
have  desired  for  awhile,  being  led  away  bv  self- 
ish and  political  ambition,  to  set  themselves  up 
against  the  privileged  decisions  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  they  were  obliged,  soon  or  late,  as  in 
the  case  of  Henry  II  of  England,  the  murderer 
of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  to  confess  their 
error,  and,  prostrate  before  his  throne,  to  profess 
submission  to  his  ordinances.* 

History  tells  us  how  even  a  Frederick  Bar- 
barossa,   the   incarnation   of  bold   resistance  to 

*Berc.  xii.  Baron,  ad  an.  1154. 


236   TESTIMONY  OF  PEINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

Papal  authority,  was  finally  led,  by  the  heavy 
hand  of  God,  to  bow  his  head  and  sue  for  par- 
don. The  same  penitent  submission,  though 
doubtless,  with  greater  sincerity,  is  to  be  wit- 
nessed in  his  son  Henry  VI. 

In  contrast  to  these  last   sovereigns,   let   us 
consider  the  Christian   example   of  the  Queen 
mother  of  Richard  the  Lion-hearted,  who  wrote 
to  the  Pope:     ^' Did  not  the  Lord  confer  Pleni- 
tude of  Power  on  Peter,  and  on  you  through  him? 
Blessed  be  the  Lord  who  gave  such  power  to 
men,   that  no   king,  no   emperor,  no  duke  can 
withdraw  himself  from   its  jurisdiction.      The 
Prince  of  the  Apostles  still  governs  in  his  See, 
and  a  judicial  power  is  constituted  in  our  midst. 
Draw,  then,  the  sword  of  Peter.     The  Cross  of 
Christ  takes  precedence  of  the  Imperial  Eagles, 
and  the  sword  of  Peter  goes  before  that  of  Con- 
stantine.    Has  not  God  spoken  to  you  in  the  per- 
son of  Peter,  ^  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  f ' "  etc. 
"  Nonne  Petro  Apostolo  et  in  eo  vobis  a  Deo  omnis 
potestas  committiturf    Benedictus  Deus,  qui  talem 
dedit  hominibus  potestatem  I  non  rex,  non  impera- 
tor,  non  dux  a  jugo  vestrcB  jurisdidionis  eximitur. 
Princeps  Apostolorum  adhuc  in  Apostolica  Sede 
regnat  et  in  medio  constitutus  est  judieiarius  rigor. 
Bested  ut  exeratis  gladium  Petri,     Giristi  ctmx  an- 
tecellU  Ccesaris  aquilas,  gladius  Petri  gladio  Con- 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    237 

stantini.  Nomie  Dens  Deonim  locutus  est  robls  in 
Petro  Apostoloy  dicens :  Quidquid  ligaveris/'  etc,  * 
Hear  ye  kings  of  modern  times,  the  lesson  of  this 
Queen,  ^'Et  nunc  reges  intelligife,^^ 

The  Emperor  Baldwin  confesses  the  same 
rights  in  his  edict,  '^  Ad  omnes  ubique  Chris- 
tianos"  as  also  the  King  of  the  Bulgarians  in 
his  embassy  to  the  Pope.  The  Emi^eror  Philip, 
in  a  letter  to  the  Pope,  along  with  another  letter 
from  the  other  princes  of  Germany,  writes: 
"  As  Rome  was  once  the  center  of  superstition,  so 
now,  by  Divine  Providence,  it  has  become  the 
center  of  salvation."  Peter  of  Arragon,  in  his 
coronation  oath  to  King  John  of  England,  in  a 
special  epistle  to  the  Pope,  Philip  II  of  France, 
and  King  Henry  of  Norway,  in  the  year  1241, 
express  the  very  same  doctrine  and  sentiments.f 

The  conscience  of  Christendom,  to  which 
Lanfranc  alluded,  manifests  itself  most  remark- 
ably in  the  celebrat^jd  Synopsis  of  Laws  for  the 
Southern  States  of  Germany,  called  the  *^  Schcab- 
enspiegel,"  and  in  that  for  the  Northern  States, 
called  the  "  Sachsempiegeiy  In  both,  mention 
is  made  of  two  swords,  the  one  temporal,  in  the 
hands  of  political  power,  the  other,  spiritual,  in 
the  hands  of  the  Pope,  the  Head  of  the  Church. 

*  Natal.  Alex,  xiii,  Baron,  ad  an.  1189,  Hard.  v. 
t  Spond.  ad  an.  1213,  Berc.  xiii. 


238   TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

Frederick  II,  himself,  in  his  apology,  speaking 
of  the  harmony  in  which  these  two  powers 
should  act  for  the  welfare  of  the  human  race, 
compares  them  to  the  sun  and  moon,  which,  in 
perfect  harmony,  illumine  and  preserve  the  life 
of  Nature.  In  developing  this  comparison,  he 
points  out  their  mutual  relation  and  subordina- 
tion, in  a  way  which  is  not  a  little  remarkable 
in  such  a  one,  as  we  know  him  to  have  been. 
"/w  exordio  nascentis  mundi  Dei  providentia  in 
firmamento  cceli  duo  statuit  luminaria,  majus  et 
minus  ....  quce  duo  sic  ad  offida  propria 
offeruntuTj  ut  unum  alterum  nmi  offendat;  imOy  quod 
super ius  est,  infer lori  suam  communicat  claritatem. 
A  simili  ceterna  provisione  duo  voluit  esse  i^egimina, 
sacerdotium,  scilicet,  et  imperiumy  unum  ad  caio- 
telam;  alterum,  ut  homo  duohus  retinaculis  /roB- 
naretur  et  sic  jieret  pax  orbisJ^ 

This  prerogative  was  acknowledged  also  by  St. 
Louis  of  France,  by  his  son  Philip  the  Bold, 
and  by  the  Kings  of  Sclavonia,  Servia,  and  the 
Princes  of  Bosnia,  by  the  Embassies  which  they 
sent  to  Rome  in  the  fourteenth  century,  as  any 
one  may  see  for  himself  by  reading  the  Annals 
of  Spondanus. 

The  Emperor  Paleologus  I,  personally  at 
Rome,  and  Paleologus  II,  personally  also  at 
the  Council  of  Florence,  made  this  same  con- 


ACKNO-^'LEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    23^ 

fession  of  faith  in  the  prerogatives  of  the  Ro- 
man Pontiif.  Similar  to  the  decision  of  Aurelian 
is  the  testimony  offered  by  the  Sultan  of  Egypt, 
in  the  name,  which  he  gives  to  the  Pope  of  "  the 
tongue  of  Christians  and  the  Judge  of  the  Chris- 
tian people.^'  "  Universalis  loquela  Ckristianorum, 
judex  j)opuli  Christiani.'^^ 

Abul  Feda,  Prince  of  Havana,  in  his  Arabian 
book  of  history,  gives  the  same  te.stimony  to  the 
general  faith  of  Christendom,  which  we  have 
been  extracting  from  its  own  records.  Such  tes- 
timony from  men  of  talent,  who  are  not  Catho- 
lic nor  even  pretend  to  be  Cliristians,  has  sin- 
gular weight,  since  they  can  not  be  suspected  of 
partisanship  or  prejudice,  and  speak  simply  in 
the  character  of  close  and  accurate  observers. 

It  is  in  our  power  also  to  adduce  the  testi- 
mony of  entire  nations,  as  made  known  by  their 
delegates  to  the  Apostolic  See. 

Thus  Abbot  Andreas,  Delegate  of  the  Chris- 
tians of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  addressing  the  Pope 
in  public  audience  says,  in  the  name  of  the  na- 
tions whose  representative  he  was :  "  Thou  art 
Christ  and  His  Vicar;  thou  art  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter,  the  head  and  teacher  of  the  Universal 
Church  to  whom  the  Keys  of  Heaven  have  been 
intrusted ;  thou  art  the  Sovereign  of  Kings  and 

♦Raynald.  ad  an.  1307,  Natal.  Alex,  xv,  39. 


240  TESTIMONY  OF  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

the  greatest  of  all  teachers.''  ^'Tu  es  Christus  et 
ejus  Vicarius,  Es  Petri  successor,  pater y  caput,  et 
doctor  Ecclesice  Universalis,  cui  data  sunt  claves 
claudendi  et  reserandi  paradisum.  Tu  princeps 
regum,  et  maximus  es  magistrorumy 

Those  Churches  which  have  separated  them- 
selves from  their  first  foundation,  their  Mother 
and  Teacher,  Eome,  have  become  through  a  just 
judgment  of  God,  objects  of  contempt  in  the 
eyes  of  the  nations. 

Even  Englishmen  are  obliged  to  confess  the 
contempt  and  ridicule  into  which  their  Church 
has  fallen. 

Let  us  listen  to  the  Delegates  of  the  Syrians, 
Chaldeans,  and  Maronites  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury. They  tell  the  Pope :  "  How  great  the 
reverence  is,  which  our  people  preserve  for  the 
Holy  See,  may  be  seen  in  the  way  in  which 
they  receive  and  welcome  its  Legates.  Old  and 
young  throw  themselves  at  their  feet,  kiss  them, 
and  strive  to  obtain  relics  of  their  vestments. 
The  whole  world  knows  that  they,  who  separate 
themselves  from  Rome,  must  perish.  Therefore 
the  Emperor  of  Ethiopia  has  nothing  more  at 
heart  than  to  be  reconciled  with  the  See  of  Rome. 
So  great  among  us  is  the  Roman  name  and  the 
Latin  faith." 

The  Abbot  Nicodemus,  on  the  occasion  of  the 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    2 11 

reconciliation  of  Ethiopia  to  the  Church,  ex- 
pressed his  joy  in  the.se  words:  ''Therefore/' 
said  he  to  the  Pope,  "  art  thou  placed  over  the 
See  of  Peter,  that  thou  may  est  feed  the.  sheep  of 
Christ.  Strive,  then,  that  all  they  who  are  dis- 
persed may  return  to  unity,  and  that  the  faith  of 
all  may  become  one."  ''  Ut  sit  omnium  fides,  una,'' 
Even  from  the  Japanese,  before  the  breaking 
out  of  the  last  and  most  cruel  persecution,  there 
came  delegations  to  Rome,  as  in  1585,  to  testify 
to  the  fidelity  and  submission  of  that  newly  con- 
verted nation  towaixl  the  common  Father  and 
Teacher  of  Christendom. 

In  the  West,  Louis  XI,  King  of  France,  re- 
jected and  overthrew,  at  the  request  of  Pius  II, 
the  so-called  "Pragmatic  Sanction,"  because  it 
contained  things  not  easily  reconcilable  with  the 
plenitude  of  the  AiK)stolic  power  of  the  Holy  See. 
He  answers  the  request  of  the  Holy  Father  in 
words  becoming  a  Christian  King :  "According 
to  your  direction  we  entirely  reject,  cast  away, 
and  annul  the  pragmatic  sanction."  ''Itaque  si- 
cut  mandxisti,  pragmaticum  ipsum  pellimus,  dejici- 
mus,  sfirpltusque  abrogamusJ' 

In  the  year  1474,  we  find  the  Christian  King 

of  Denmark  at  the  feet  of  the  reigning  Pontiff, 

paying  him  the  homage  and  veneration  due  to 

the  Supreme  Head  of  tlie  Church.     The  ,same 

21 


242   TESTIMONY  OF  PEINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

was  done  by  Charles  YIII  of  France,  and  by 
Henry  YII  of  England,  who  derived  his  royal 
dignity  from  a  Bull  of  Innocent  VIII. 

God  so  ordered  it,  that  even  Henry  YIII  of 
England,  who,  carried  away  by  lust  and  passion, 
together  with  his  illegitimate  daughter  Elizabeth, 
seduced  England  from  her  allegiance  and  forced 
her  into  heresy  and  schism,  should  first  give  to 
the  princes  and  peoples  a  strong  and  energetic 
profession  of  faith. 

Every  one  knows  how,  on  the  rise  of  Luther, 
and  when  Protestantism  first  threatened  to  in- 
vade England,  he  wrote  a  book  in  which  he  de- 
nounced the  heresiarch,  and  dedicated  it  to  the 
Pope,  as  the  supreme  judge  in  matters  of  faith. 
This  work,  for  which  he  gained  the  title  still  im- 
pudently borne  by  his  successors,  defensor  Jideij 
he  sent  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  and  to  all 
the  Kings  and  Princes  of  Europe.  In  it,  in  the 
article  on  Indulgences,  he  addresses  Luther  in 
these  terms :  "  No  enemy  of  the  Pope  can  deny 
the  submission  which  has  been  paid  to  him,  by 
the  Christian  world,  in  all  times  and  places. 
Now,  if  the  Pope  did  not  acquire  this  privilege 
by  divine  right,  let  I^uther  point  out  when  and 
how  he  became  possessed  of  it.  The  origin  of 
such  power  can  not  be  lost  in  obscurity,  espe- 
cially since  it  is  within  the  reach  of  human  mem- 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PREROGATIVE.    243 

ory/'  '^Dicat  L/uiherus,  quando  in  tantce  ditionis 
irrupit  possessionem,  Non  potest  obscurum  in'iti- 
um  esse  tarn  imiiiensce  jiotentiiVj  prcesertim  si  intra 
hominum  inemoriam  naia  est.'*^  He  then  adjures 
all  Christians  to  close  their  ears  to  the  dangerous 
words  of  Luther,  and  to  remain  faithful  to  the 
Holy  See.  The  wretched  man,  on  the  day  of 
judgment,  must  hear  addressed  to  him  the  words 
of  our  Lord :  "  Ex  ore  tuo  te  judico,  serve  ne- 
quamj^  "  From  thy  own  mouth  I  judge  thee, 
wicked  servant."  But  if  Henry  could  safely 
challenge  the  world  to  point  out  the  time,  when 
the  Supremacy  and  Infallibility  of  the  Pope  first 
arose,  the  world,  in  return,  can  easily  fix  the  date, 
in  which  the  Sovereigns  of  England  first  arroga- 
ted their  usurped  power  over  the  Church,  if  that 
should  be  called  a  Church  which  yields  them 
sjiiritual  allegiance. 

A  martyr  under  this  same  brutal  persecutor, 
Thomas  More,  confirms  by  his  testimony,  what 
we  have  proved  of  the  faith  of  Englishmen  up  to 
this  period.  Cited  before  the  tribunal  of  his  in- 
iquitous judges,  he  said  :  "  Having  noticed  the 
intention  of  the  King  to  disobey  the  Pope,  for 
the  last  seven  years,  I  have  thoroughly  examined 
the  question,  to  ascertain  whence  the  authority 
of  the  Pope  originated,  and  I  have  found  it 
clearly  proven  to  be  of  divine  right.'^     To  the 


24^4    TESTIMONY  OF  PEINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

question,  how  he  dared  in  this  to  oppose  the  opin- 
ion of  so  many  learned  clergymen  and  laity,  he 
answered :  "  For  one  Bishop  whom  you  can  cite 
on  your  side,  I  can  name  a  hundred  in  opposi- 
tion, and  against  one  kingdom  I  oppose  the  voice 
of  all  Christendom  for  the  space  of  over  one 
thousand  years.  If  I  alone  had  to  stand  up 
against  the  Parliament,  it  would  be  a  difficult 
task ;  but  with  me  I  have  the  whole  Catholic 
Church,  that  great  Parliament  of  Christianity." 
Mary,  Queen  of  England,  and  Mary  of  Scot- 
land, remained  faithful  to  the  truth,  and  England 
for  a  time  was  able  to  discern  and  follow  the  faith 
of  her  fathers,  until  Elizabeth  ascended  the 
throne  and  forced  the  nation  into  the  false  path 
in  which  it  has  hitherto  walked,  and  where  it  is 
kept  by  disobedience  to  the  voice  of  him,  who  is 
the  Head  of  the  true  and  only  Church  of  Christ. 
In  these  our  days,  we  rejoice  in  the  prospect  of 
a  better  time  for  that  once  isle  of  saints,  now  that 
so  many  of  her  purest  and  best,  most  illustrious 
and  learned,  are  commencing  to  search  for  them- 
selves, and  to  listen  to  the  powerful  voice  of  old 
traditions,  and,  led  by  the  love  of  truth,  are  find- 
ing their  way  back  to  the  arras  of  their  Mother — 
of  that  Church  whose  Head  welcomes  them,  as 
his  sstintly.  predecessor,  Gregory  the  Great, 
called  them  to  the  faith. 


ACKNOWLEDGING  THIS  PRErcOGATTV^E.    245 

In  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation, 
Maximilian  I  wrote  to  the  Pope :  "  Nobody  can 
judge  these  perilous  doctrines  but  your  Holiness, 
and  as  you  alone  can,  so  you  ought  to  do  it.'' 
"  Quo  sola  ut  potest,  ita  debet  J  ^  Of  Luther, 
whom  he  had  learned  to  know  intimately,  this 
Emperor  said :  "  AVhen  I  am  dead,  this  monk 
will  cause  much  trouble  and  misery  in  the  Em- 
pire/' "  J/e  mortuoj  monaclnis  iste  calamitates  et 
misei^ias  gravissimas  in  imperio  excitabU.^'^ 

Charles  V  acknowledges  this  privilege  of  the 
Holy  See  in  what  is  called  the  ^'  Interim,"  and,  so 
soon  as  Henry  IV  of  France  returned  to  the 
Church,  he  sent  embassadors  to  the  Poj)e  to  sig- 
nify his  entire  submission  to  him  and  to  his  de- 
cisions, as,  he  says,  was  the  practice  of  French 
monarchs.  The  same  was  done  by  Louis  XIII, 
his  son,  and  even  by  Louis  XIV.  This  proud 
and  self-willed  Sovereign,  notwithstanding  his 
schismatical  tendencies,  was  finally  compelled,  by 
conscience,  to  retract  the  four  articles  of  Galil- 
ean ism,  which  he  had  extorted  from  a  servile 
episcopacy,  and  which  he  again  foreswore  in  his 
last  will  and  testament. 

The  devotion  and  submission  of  the  Maximil- 
ians and  Ferdinands  who  succeeded  Charles  V 
on  the  imperial  throne,  are  too  well  known  to 

*Spond.  an.  1517. 


246   TESTIMONY  OP  PRINCES  AND  PEOPLES, 

need  exposition  here.  Besides  these  the  Kings 
of  Spain,  Portugal,  Naples,  and  others  continued 
in  the  path  traced  out  to  them  by  their  predeces- 
sors. Napoleon  the  Great  was  not  the  man  to 
undervalue  or  ignore  the  authority  and  influence 
of  the  Pontiff  upon  the  Universal  Church,  and 
hence  his  persistent  effort  to  make  him  his  will- 
ing and  submissive  subject.  But  his  power  dis- 
appeared in  the  fogs  of  St.  Helena ;  that  of  the 
Pope  remains  resplendent  on  the  rock  of  Peter, 
in  the  midst  of  all  the  cataclysms  that  agitate  our 
age.  The  unrelenting  animosity  of  the  enemies 
of  the  Church  is  not  so  much  against  Pius  IX, 
as  against  the  faith  that  he  defends  and  the 
Church  of  which  he  is  the  Head ;  promising 
themselves  that,  in  spite  of  its  more  than  thou- 
sand Bishops,  they  will  easily  triumph,  if  they 
can  but  break  or  weaken  the  prerogative  and 
privilege  of  its  Puler  and  Teacher,  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  successor  of  St.  Peter,  Vicar  of  Christ. 
Little  do  they  foresee  or  seem  to  know  that,  even 
though  they  were  to  succeed  in  banishing  him 
from  Rome,  they  would  be  no  nearer  to  success, 
since  his  authority  goes  with  him,  and  where  he 
is,  there  is  Rome,  the  rock  of  Peter. 

No  doubt,  the  ^'  conscience  '^  of  Christianity  is 
yet  awake.  Wherever  the  Pope  may  be,  the  true 
sheep  of  the  flock  of  Christ  will  listen  to  his  voice 


ACKNOWLEDGING   THIS   PREEOGATWE.    247 

as  to  that  of  Peter.  Even  a  Renan  is  conscious 
of  this  fiiithfiil  sentiment  of  Christianity,  as  we 
may  understand  from  the  words  of  his  last  work, 
''Meditations  Contemporaires,''  published  last 
year  in  Paris,  where  he  says :  "  The  Pope  knows 
better  than  his  adversaries  what  it  means  to  be  a 
Catholic.  He  published  his  Syllabus,  well  aware 
that  it  would  not  do  for  a  Catholic  to  brave  the 
teaching  of  a  Pope."  Yes,  the  Catholic  world 
at  large,  without  any  difference  of  nationality, 
hemisphere,  or  zone,  acknowledges  also  in  our 
times,  by  an  interior  conviction  ef  faith,  the 
Apostolical  See  as  the  highest  tribunal  on  earth 
in  matters  of  faith,  and  the  Roman  Pontiff  to  be 
the  infallible  teacher  of  the  faithful  peoples  on 
the  globe. 


VIII. 

THE  "RATIO  THEOLOGICA," 

OR   THE   E7IDE:^CE    OF   THE   TRUTH    OF   OUR    THESIS    BY   THB 
FORCE  OF  LOGICAL  CONSEQUENCES. 


By  the  "Ratio  Theologica"  we  understand 
the  deductions  which  right  reason,  logically 
exercised,  acquires  by  its  own  light  from  that 
which  faith  has  taught.  "  Ex  daiis  et  concessisj' 
Tlierefore,  though  reason  can  not  invent  new 
articles  of  faith,  it  has  its  due  weight  in  argu- 
ments concerning  faith,  more  particularly  when 
the  arguments  are  approved  and  sustained  by 
the  true  sources  of  faith,  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture and  tradition,  as  taught  and  understood  by 
the  Church  in  her  legitimate  organs.  We  have 
only  to  look  in  the  works  of  St.  Thomas,  in  order 
to  perceive  how  justly  and  highly  the  weight  of 
reason,  aud  the  force  of  logical  consequences, 
(248) 


THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA.  249 

were  always  appreciated  by  the  Doctors  of  the 
Church.  Let  us,  then,  hear  what  calm  and  sober 
reason  has  to  tell  us  touching  our  proposition. 

Reason,  then,  on  considering  the  words  of 
Christ  as  contained  in  Holy  Writ,  holds  the  fol- 
lowing language : 

According  to  what  Christ  promised  to  Peter, 
He  had  to  grant  to  him  and  to  his  successors  the 
privilege  of  Supreme  and  Intallible  authority  in 
matters  of  faith.  It  was  certainly  in  His  power 
to  grant  it,  and  the  way  in  which  He  introduced 
and  established  it  in  the  world,  made  it  emi- 
nently convenient  and  necessary  that  He  should 
confer  this  right  and  privilege  on  the  Head  of 
the  Church — therefore,  He  did  in  llict  confer  it. 
Prcyinisit,  potuit,  dedit.  He  promised  it,  he 
could,  it  was  proper  that  He  should,  therefore, 
He  did  give  it.  This  is  briefly  what  we  have  to 
say  and  to  prove,  in  order  that  we  may  perceive 
the  logical  strength  of  this  deduction  or  theologi- 
cal conclusion. 

First.  We  remark  that  Reason  dictates,  that 
if  any  one  promises  a  thing  as  infallibly  certain, 
and  that  promise  draws  with  it  necessarily  the 
fulfillment  of  another  condition,  without  which 
the  former  promise  can  not  be  kept,  then  if  he 
sincerely  promises  the  first,  he  as  certainly  in- 
cludes the  second.     Such,  in  point  of  fact,  were 


250  THE   RATIO  THEOLOGICA, 

the  promises  made  to  Peter  and  to  his  successors 
for  the  good  of  the  Church,  necessarily  involving 
the  right  and  privilege  of  which  Ave  are  treating; 
hence,  as  Christ  did  certainly  promise  and  sin- 
cerely promise  the  former,  he  as  certainly  con- 
ferred the  latter.  As  to  the  words  of  jjromise  we 
proved  them,  when  treating  the  testimony  of 
Sacred  Writ,  and  as  to  the  conditional  necessity 
of  the  prerogative,  we  hold  that  no  candid  man 
can  doubt  it ;  so,  therefore,  the  consequence  neces- 
sarily follows.  Hear  the  proof  of  our  conse- 
quence : 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  Ave  repeat,  that  having 
constituted  Peter  and  his  successors  the  founda- 
tion of  His  Church,  and  having  pt^omised  that 
the  gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail  against 
her,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  he  must  so 
strengthen  that  foundation,  that  it  can  never  fail. 

Having  imposed  on  Peter  and  his  successors 
the  office  of  confirming  their  brethren,  it  became 
a  necessity  that  He  should  so  strengthen  their 
faith  that  they  should  be  able  to  fulfill  the  office, 
that  is,  that  they  should  never  fall  into  error  in 
that,  which  they  had  to  confirm. 

Having  imposed  on  Peter  and  his  successors 
the  care  of  feeding  both  the  lambs  and  the  sheep, 
and  hence  upon  the  flock  the  obligation  of  fol- 
lowing them  as  leaders,  it  necessarily  follows  that 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  251 

he  must  have  rendered  it  impossible  that  Peter  or 
his  successors  should  ever  lead  them  astray  into 
the  path  of  error.  To  deny  any  of  these  three 
premises,  with  their  common  consequence,  form- 
ing, as  they  do,  one  and  the  same  argument, 
would  be  as  much  as  to  say  that  either  Christ 
did  not  know  what  He  was  promising,  or  could 
not  fulfill  what  He  promised.  The  former  would 
be  blasphemy — the  latter  no  less. 

Second.  We  say  that  Christ  could  do  it. 
To  deny  the  possibility,  would  be  to  limit  the 
power  of  the  Almighty,  or  to  deny  the  Divinity 
of  Christ.  Moreover,  according  to  our  oppo- 
nents, He  had  it  in  His  power  to  do  so  for  the 
whole  Church,  since  they  claim  infiillibility  for 
it,  and  will  they  tell  us  that  what  He  could  do 
for  the  many.  He  could  not  do  for  one?  Each 
one  of  the  many  whom  they  would  collectively 
invest  with  this  privilege,  is  after  all  but  one; 
what  incongruity  or  impossibility  is  there  in  the 
single  Head  of  the  Church  enjoying  what  they 
suppose  to  have  been  granted  to  a  body  of  single 
individuals  ? 

Third.  We  said  it  was  convenient  or  proper, 
that  He  should  do  it.  We  would  not  be  under- 
stood to  determine  a  priori  what  Christ  must  or 
must  not  do,  in  order  to  make  His  Church  in- 
fallible ;  a  thousand  ways  were  open  to  Him,  no 


i 
252  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

doubt,  of  which  we  can  know  nothing.  For  in- 
stance, He  could  have  sent  for  every  fresh  emer- 
gency an  Angel  from  heaven  to  teach  or  direct 
the  faithful.  We  do  not  attempt,  therefore,  to 
prescribe  or  dictate  what  He  had  to  choose  or  do ; 
but  we  have  a  right  to  use  the  reason  which  He 
himself  gave  us,  and  say  if  the  manner  in  which 
He  established  His  Church,  is  such,  as  of  itself  to 
require  that  He  should  have  invested  its  head 
with  such  a  prerogative  in  matters  of  faith,  then 
His  own  infinite  wisdom  compelled  Him  to  have 
done  so.  Now  such  is  precisely  the  case,  and 
thus  it  is  that  we  say  that  it  was  convenient  and 
proper  that  He  should  do  so. 

Does  the  manner  in  which  He  constituted  His 
Church  so  compel  Him?  This  is  all  that  we 
have  to  prove,  for  that  once  granted,  it  is  plain 
that  our  consequence  must  follow. 

He  constituted  that  Church,  the  kingdom  of 
truth,  a  visible  Church,  to  be  set  on  the  top  of  a 
mountain,  and  to  be  acknowledged  as  such  by 
all  who  are  of  good  will.  Now,  how  can  that 
Church  be  a  kingdom  of  truth  of  which  the 
Head  may  be  the  mouthpiece  of  error,  or  how 
can  it  be  visible  to  all,  that  is,  be  a  beacon  for 
their  wandering  steps,  if  its  summit  be  ^ost  in 
the  mists  of  ignorance  or  willful  falsehood,  and 
thus  cease  to  direct   them?     Where,  and   how 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  253 

should  the  children  of  men  look  for  the  truth, 
save  in  the  visible  head  of  the  one  true  Church, 
the   kingdom   of  truth?     When   there   is   only 
one  to  attend  to,  the  search  is  possible,  but  not 
in  the  supposition  of  our   adversaries,  when  it 
Avould  be  necessary  to  consult  the  majority  of  the 
Bishops,  dispersed  throughout  the  world  or  as- 
sembled in  Council.     Both   these   suppositions, 
considering  the  manner  in  which  the  Church  ex- 
ists, can  be  easily  shown  to  be  impracticable ^  as 
means  to  arrive  at  the  object  of  man's  search, 
the  true  faith.     Not  Ihe  General  or  CEcumenical 
Council  can  be  the  common  and  ordinary  tribunal 
of  faith,  and  so  established  by  Christ,  since,  by 
the  ordinary  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  it 
is  subjected  to  so  many  impediments  that  its  use 
is  for  centuries  made  impossible. 

History  has   proved   this   beyond  the   possi- 
bility of  contradiction. 

Three  hundred  years  elapsed  after  the  birth 
of  Christianity^  many  heresies  had  arisen,  and 
no  General  Council  had  been  possible  on  account 
of  the  exterior  difficulties.  In  the  meantime 
the  Papal  decisions  were  found  sufficient  to 
grapple  with  and  destroy  the  growing  errors. 
Moreover,  since  the  Council  of  Nice,  in  sixteen 
'  hundred  years,  only  seventeen  General  Councils 
have  been  held;  and  from  the  celebration  of  the 


254 


last  to  our  own  time,  three  hundred  years  have 
elapsed.      Alas   for  the   Church,  if,  during  the 
intervals,   all   that  agitated  her   had  to  remain 
in  susjiense,  and  undecided  until  the  convoca- 
tion of  a  future  Council,  of  which  no  one  could 
be  certain  that  it  would  ever  be  held !     Espe- 
cially  is   this    verified    in   the  case  of  the    last 
Council,  that  of  Trent,  held  three  hundred  years 
ago.     Can  any   one  pretend  that  it  was  more 
convenient  and  proper  that  Christ  should  have 
instituted  for  His  Church,  that  might  any  day 
stand  in  need  of  most  important  decisions  con- 
cerning  the  faith,    a   tribunal   that   could   only 
meet  in  spite  of  great  difficulties  and  at  only 
long   intervals  of  time?      His  infinite  wisdom 
forbids  the  supposition.     But   even  so,  nothing 
would    have    been    gained    in    the    supposition 
of  our   adversaries,  since   the   decisions  of  the 
Council  would   still  have  needed  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  Supreme  Pontifi^  before  they  could 
carry  with  them  a  binding  obligation,  and  then 
how  could   it   be    styled    the   last   and    highest 
tribunal  of  faith  ?    In  confirming  its  decrees,  the 
Pope,  as  w^e  already  asserted,  is  either  infallible 
or  not;  if  the  latter,  he  may  be  wrong  in  rejecting 
or  affirming  its  decisions;   if  the  former,^ he  is 
what  we  claim  for  him,  personally  infallible  in 
teaching  the  Church  concerning  matters  of  faith. 


OR  EVIDENCE  OF  REASON.      255 

Finally,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  Coun- 
cils themselves,  although  they  have  not  detini- 
tively  passed  upon  the  question,  have,  in  their 
acts,  decrees,  and  general  language,  made  a  suffi- 
ciently clear  i)rofession  of  their  belief  in  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

RcL^ardino;  therefore  as  established  the  inad- 
niissibility  of  a  General  Council  as  the  ordinary 
and  regular  tribunal  in  matters  of  faith  estab- 
lished by  Christ,  the  only  alternative  now  left 
for  consideration,  as  distinct  from  our  thesis,  is 
that  of  the  assent  of  the  Church  dispersed 
throughout  the  world. 

Of  this  we  have  to  prove,  as  in  the  other 
case,  that,  considering  the  manner  in  which 
Christ  was  pleased  to  establish  His  Church  on 
earth,  it  was  not  convenient  or  proper  that 
Christ  should  have  established  it  as  the  ordi- 
nary and  regular  tribunal  for  the  decision  of 
questions  concerning  the  faith. 

Of  course,  ^ve  admit  that  the  Church  so  con- 
sidered, and  taken  as  a  body,  can  never  err  in 
matters  of  faith,  we  only  deny  that  she  was  in- 
tended, when  so  taken,  to  be  the  tribunal  or- 
dained by  Christ  for  the  settling  of  controver- 
sies d^ncerning  doctrine. 

And  this  follows,  because  such  a  supposition 
would  be  contradictory  to  the  words  of  Christ, 


256  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

as  contained  in  Holy  Writ;  to  the  declarations 
of  the  Holy  Fathers;  to  the  testimony  of  his- 
tory, and  fails  to  present  the  qualities  necessary 
to  such  a  tribunal. 

I.  It  contradicts  those  words  of  Christ  in 
which  he  imposed  upon  St.  Peter  the  office  of 
confirming  his  brethren.  For,  if  we  suppose 
that  the  assent  of  the  Church  dispersed  is  the 
last  and  highest  test  of  inflillible  teaching  or 
authority,  then  it  is  not  Peter  who  confirms  his 
brethren,  but  it  is  rather  his  brethren  who  con- 
firm him.  Until  that  consent  arrive,  the  Pope 
could  not  be  certain  that  he  had  spoken  infalli- 
bly, and  must  necessarily  remain  in  suspense,  if 
not  in  doubt,  and  consequently  we  do  not  exag- 
gerate in  saying  that  when  it  arrived  it  would 
rather  confirm  him,  than  receive  confirmation 
from  him.  At  least,  it  would  be  a  mutual  con- 
firmation, and  not  such  as  our  Lord  imposed 
upon  Peter,  when  he  prayed  that  his  faith  should 
not  fiiil,  that  he  being  once  confirmed  should 
confirm  his  brethren.  In  our  thesis  no  such  dif- 
ficulty is  met,  and  there  is  a  beautiful  fulfillment 
of  the  text.  When  the  Pope,  as  Head  of  the 
Church,  is  teaching  the  faithful,  or  pronounces  a 
definition,  or  confirms  those  of  a  General  Coun- 
cil, pointing  out  infallibly  what  all  must  hold  or 
reject,  his  decision  is  a  rule  of  faith,  and  he  as- 


OR   EVIDENCE  OF  REASON.  257 

suredly  does  fulfill  the  commands  of  Christ  and 
confirm  his  brethren,  and  thus,  and  thus  only, 
can  the  words  of  our  Lord  be  literally  and  glo- 
riously verified.  When  arguing  against  Prot- 
estants, who  say  that  to  obtain  the  pardon  of 
sin,  it  is  always  and  entirely  sufficient  to  repent 
and  ask  pardon  of  God,  we  ask  them,  what  then 
becomes  of  the  words,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost :  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  are  forgiven 
them?"  St.  Augustin  asks  the  same  question 
in  his  day  when  heretics  said  that  any  and  every 
Christian  had  that  power  of  forgiving  their 
neighbor's  sin.  "Ergofrustabitur  vcrbum  ChrM  f^ 
"  Shall  the  word  of  Christ  be  brought  to  naught? 
It  was  to  the  Apostles,  and  to  them  only,  that 
He  said,"  etc.  ^yith  like  force  do  we  urge 
the  words  of  our  Lord  in  this  instance.  They 
must  be  verified,  and  can  be  verified  only  in  our 
supposition.  ''Confirm  thy  brethren,"  can  not 
mean  he  mutually  confirmed,  still  less,  he  confirmed 
by  thy  brethren.  OtherAvise  these  His  words 
would  remain  void  of  meaning. 

II.  It  contradicts  the  declarations  of  the  Holy 
Fathers,  whose  testimony  we  have  before  cited. 
They  do  not  predicate  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Ro- 
man See  on  its  agreement  with  the  teaching  of  the 
other  Churches,  but  just  the  contrar}^  Their 
Canon  of  Orthodoxy  for  the  other  Churches  is 
22 


258  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

the  agreement  of  their  teaching  with  the  faith  of 
Rome,  and  this,  too,  as  a  final  and  absohite  con- 
dition, absolving  them  from  any  further  proof  of 
their  agreeing  with  the  faith  or  teaching  of  any 
other  Apostolic  Church.  To  agree  with  Rome 
is  to  be  orthodox,  nothing  more  is  needed.  To 
agree  with  other  Churches  would  be  nothing 
for  or  against,  since  they  too  must  conform  to 
the  same  rule,  and  agree  with  Rome,  with  which, 
in  the  words  of  St.  Irenseus,  '^necesse  est  eonvenire 
omnem  aliam  Ecclesiam"  because  it  was  founded 
on  Peter  and  inherits  his  faith  through  its  Bishop, 
the  successor  of  Peter. 

In  the  same  way  the  most  learned  St.  Jerome 
exclaimed:  "Let  others  think  and  say  what 
they  please ;  I  say,  he  that  holds  with  you,  agrees 
with  me."  ^'Slquis  Cathedrce  Petri  jungitur,  meus 
estJ^  And  why  ?  ^'  Because  on  this  rock  the 
Church  was  built."  That,  and  not  the  consent 
previously  obtained  from  the  dispersed  Church, 
is  the  reason  of  the  unconditional  submission 
paid  by  the  Fathers  to  the  Roman  See.  They 
urge  it  upon  others,  because,  with  St.  Augustin, 
they  hold  it  a  crime  to  contradict  the  decisions 
of  Rome ;  with  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon,  and 
others,  that  it  is  not  the  Church  dispersed,  but 
Peter  who   speaks  through   the  mouth  of  the 


OE   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  259 

Bishop  of  Rome.  Per  os  Leonis  et  Agathonis, 
Pdrus  locidus  est. 

In  reasoning  thus,  as  we  must  do  in  view  of 
the  declarations  of  the  Holy  Fathers  and  of  our 
Lord  Himself,  we  do  not,  of  course,  pretend  that 
the  universal  teaching  of  the  Church  on  any 
point  is  not  also  an  infallible  sign  of  truth,  ac- 
cording to  the  widely  celebrated  canon  of  St. 
Vincent  Lerens,  "  that  which  was,  ever,  every- 
where and  by  all  believed."  ^'Quod  semper, 
ubique  et  ab  omnibus  creditum  est.'^  However 
great  the  weight  justly  due  to  this  canon,  it  can 
not  be  laid  down  as  a  principle  whereby  to  es- 
tablish a  tribunal  of  faith,  that  is,  a  rule  where- 
by a  truth  known  of  faith  is  definitively  promul- 
gated by  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  which  so 
entails  the  obligation  of  belief,  that  any  one  re- 
fusing to  give  it  interior  and  exterior  consent, 
becomes  a  heretic  and  ceases  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Church. 

In  this  respect  we  affirm  that  the  canon  of 
orthodoxy  is  that  given  by  St.  Jerome :  "  I  hold 
with  him  who  adheres  to  the  Church  of  Rome; 
that  is  Catholic  which  is  Roman. '^  ''Hoc  Catho- 
licumj  quod  BomanumJ^  The  consent  of  the 
Church,  disperstty  can  never  be  substituted  for 
such  an  ultimate  tribunal,  because : 


260  THE   EATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

III.  Such  consent  is  destitute  of  the  qualities 
necessary  to  form  the  tribunal  in  question. 

Those  qualities  are  visibility,  distinctiveness,  and 
apj^Ucability. 

By  the  first,  visibility,  we  mean  the  moral  fa- 
cility and  possibility  of  arriving  at  a  knowledge 
of  the  fact  of  its  decision.  Now  this  is  not  the 
case  in  regard  to  the  consent  of  the  Church  dis- 
persed throughout  the  world.  To  arrive  at  the 
knowledge  of  such  consent,  an  amount  of  learn- 
ing is  required  which  few  persons  possess,  to- 
gether with  opportunities  of  scrutinizing  various 
documents,  historical,  critical,  and  scientific,  be- 
yond the  reach  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  faithful. 
No  one  who  does  not  live  in  an  imaginary  world, 
instead  of  tlie  world  as  it  is,  can  question  the  truth 
of  this  assertion. 

In  respect  to  a  decision  by  the  Roman  Pontiff 
there  is  no  such  difficulty,  and  if  any  one  doubted 
the  nature  of  that  decision  he  could  at  least  con- 
sult the  Holy  Father  himself.  This,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  done  in  all  ages.  Persons  traveled 
from  the  far  East,  from  the  South  of  Africa  and 
the  North  of  Europe,  as  from  the  extreme  isles 
of  the  West,  for  the  sake  of  a  personal  audience 
with  the  Holy  Father,  and  to  receive  from  his 
own  lips  an  answer  to  their  doubts  or  difficulties. 
We  have  seen  it  done  even  by  peasants,  as  in  the 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  261 

case  of  some  Tyrolian  pietists.  And  now,  more 
than  ever  before,  is  such  access  open  to  all, 
whether  by  visit  or  by  word  of  writing. 

By  distinctiveness,  we  mean  its  excluding  all 
want  of  precision  and  doubt  as  to  its  meaning, 
and  every  possibility  of  misinterpretation.  This 
quality  is  necessary  to  a  tribunal  which  compels 
an  act  of  faith,  and,  we  need  hardly  add,  is  not 
attached  to  a  consent  of  the  Church  disj^ersed 
throughout  the  workl,  since  it  presupposes  an 
infdlible  certainty  in  judging  of  the  existence 
of  that  consent.  A  moral  conviction  that  some 
truth  is  universally  or  generally  held  throughout 
the  Church,  can  justify  it  as  a  Catliolic  opinion, 
but  can  not  impose  the  obligation  of  exciting  an 
act  of  faith,  under  the  penalty  of  being  other- 
wise accounted  a  heretic.  Such  a  consent  of  the 
Church  can  never  claim  the  prerogative  of  being 
a  tribunal  of  faith,  or  rule  of  faith,  even  though 
it  were  a  Thomas  of  Aquinas  who  applied  him- 
self to  the  task  of  verifying  the  fact  of  its  ex- 
istence. 

This  we  witnessed  at  the  time  of  the  definition 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception.  Six  hundred 
Bishops  had  already  given  their  answers  by  let- 
ter; two  hundred  were  assembled  together  at 
Rome,  and  yet  had  not  Pirs  IX  raised  his 
voice,  and  proclaimed  that  truth  to  be  an  ar- 


262  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

tide  of  faith,  no  one  could  to-day  assert  with  the 
infallible  certainty  of  faith,  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  But  from 
the  moment  that  Pius  IX  proclaimed  his  defini- 
tion, not  only  every  Catholic  could,  but  was 
obliged  to  believe  it  to  be  an  article  of  faith, 
whether  he  had  ascertained  the  general  consent 
of  the  Church  or  not.  Take  the  very  subject  of 
our  present  discussion.  What  a  number  of  doc- 
uments have  we  not  cited  in  its  favor,  and  yet 
the  truth  which  we  defend  is  not  held  as  an 
article  of  faith,  and  will  not  be,  until  it  has  been 
made  the  subject  of  a  precise  definition. 

Moreover,  what  if  a  great  part  of  the  Church 
dispersed,  amounting  apparently  to  a  majority, 
should  seem  to  favor  error,  as  in  the  time  when 
St.  Jerome  exclaimed,  ^^The  whole  world  was 
astonished  to  find  itself  Arian?"  Such  occasions 
might  possibly  occur  again.  At  least,  it  will 
always  be  in  the  power  of  obstinate  heretics  to 
pretend  that  the  consent  of  the  Church  has  not 
been  expressed  with  sufficient  unanimity  or  clear- 
ness, with  the  advantage  on  their  side  of  count- 
ing themselves  among  the  judges  of  the  common 
tribunal,  and  thus  lessening,  in  a  very  obvious 
way,  the  distinctiveness  or  preciseness  of  the 
judgment. 

The  third  quality  which  we  denied  to   this 


OR   EVIDENCE  OF  REASON.  263 

method,  and  which  is  also  necessary  to  such  a 
tribunal  of  faith,  is  applicability,  or  its  general 
fitness  for  use.     For  the  most  part  of  men,  we 
may  say  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  consult 
or   to  decide  upon   the  general  consent  of  the 
Church   in    reference  to  any  question;   and   as 
nobody,   not  even  the  most  learned,  can  hope 
to  arrive  ^at  absolute  certainty   in   this   matter, 
it  would  follow  that   Christ,  if  He  had  consti- 
tuted  this   the    regular    and    ordinary   tribunal 
of  faith,  would,  in  fact,  considering  the  state  of 
mankind  and  tlie  Church's  position  in  its  midst, 
have  provided  no  tribunal  at  all,  and  have  thus 
left  His  children  no  distinctive  and  decided  help 
or  certainty  in  matters  of  faith.     We  say,  there- 
fore: 

ly.  The  assertion  that  the  consent  of  the 
Church  dispersed  must  be  considered  the  last 
and  highest  tribunal  in  matters  of  faith,  is  about 
on  a  par  with  that  which  Protestants  make  with 
regard  to  the  Bible  alone  as  interpreted  by  indi- 
viduals. What  Catholics  answer  to  their  pre- 
tensions might  equally  well  be  brought  forward 
against  this  theoiy  of  the  ''Ecdesia  clispersa.'^ 

Indeed,  what  are  the  principal  Catholic  argu- 
ments on  this  point?     Are  they  not  : 

1.  That  the  question  of  the  canonicity  of  each 
and  all  the  parts  of  that  sacred  volume  is  a  fact 


264  THE   EATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

that  has  to  be  settled  elsewhere  and  not  from  the 
book  itself. 

2.  The  Bible  is  not  sufficiently  clear  and  de- 
cisive in  itself  alone,  to  be  considered  as  the  rule 
of  faith  or  its  highest  tribunal. 

3.  The  Bible  itself  contradicts  the  supposition, 
and  points  out  another  and  different  rule  of  faith. 

4.  If,  indeed,  the  Bible  be  the  sole  rule  of 
faith,  then,  taking  it  as  it  is,  it  can  only  be  such 
for  a  few  very  learned  men ;  but  Christ  came  for 
all,  and  all  need  the  rule  of  faith,  especially  the 
poor  and  ignorant,  the  many. 

5.  The  private  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  in 
the  actual  order  of  God's  Providence,  necessarily 
remains  private  and  human,  whereas  the  rule  of 
faith  must  be  divine,  and  be  the  same  for  all. 

Now  these  same  reasons  obtain,  and  with  even 
greater  weight,  against  the  theory  that  we  are  re- 
futing. 

1.  The  existence  of  a  consent  of  the  Church 
dispersed,  is  a  fact  which  has  to  be  proved  else- 
where than  from  the  consent  itself,  that  is,  by  the 
evidences  of  the  consent.  To  ascertain  this  fact 
is  a  yet  more  difficult  task  than  to  establish,  that 
one  or  other  book  of  Sacred  Scripture  has  been 
authoritatively  accepted  in  the  Church  as  canon- 
ical. Strictly  and  severely  speaking,  the  fact  it- 
self of  the  consent  would,  in  that  case,  be  the  ob- 


OR  EVIDENCE  OF  REASON.      265 

ject  of  another  approved  consent  of  the  Church — 
and,  so  far,  an  endless  round. 

The  objection  can  not  be  retorted  against  us, 
where  there  is  but  one  question  to  be  asked  and 
answered :  "  Did  the  Pope,  addressing  the  faith- 
ful, teach  or  define  it  or  not  ?  '^  If  there  should 
be  place  for  doubt,  that  doubt  cao  be  easily  solved 
by  recurring  to  the  Pope  himself. 

2.  The  consent,  as  we  have  shown,  is  not  and 
can  not  be  sufficiently  dear  and  rlefinitive  to  be  a 
rule  of  faith.  The  Pope's  definitions,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  in  precise  and  positive  terms  and 
immediate  answers,  word  for  w^ord,  to  the  ques- 
tions proposed, 

3.  The  general  consent  of  the  Church,  as  we 
have  seen,  is,  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained,  ad- 
verse  to  the  supposition,  and  points  very  signifi- 
cantly to  our  own  as  the  correct  thesis. 

4.  The  investigation  necessary  to  prove  the 
existence  of  this  consent,  would  be  for  the  few  and 
the  learned  J  not  for  the  poor  and  the  multitude. 
The  same  reasons,  therefore,  founded  on  histori- 
cal, critical,  and  scientific,  not  to  mention  literary 
difficulties,  militate  against  this  investigation 
equally,  as  against  the  fair  and  correct  interpre- 
tation of  Holy  Writ. 

5.  Finally,  as  in  Biblical  interpretation  so 
in  this  case,  the  judgment  could  not  ascend  higher 

23 


266  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

than  its  premises,  and  would  remain  private  and 
human,  not  divine,  and  therefore  not  free  from 
liability  to  error.  Have  we  not,  time  and  again, 
seen  the  most  learned  Theologians  of  the  Church 
bringing  up  authorities,  which,  no  doubt,  they 
believed  to  settle  the  question,  and,  after  all  was 
said  on  both  sides,  it  remained  still  at  variance 
with  the  general  consent  of  the  Church  concerning 
the  point  in  dispute  ?  Do  not  St.  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas 'and  St.  Bonaventure  sometimes  disagree, 
though  both  would  have  l^een  unwilling  to  differ 
from  what  they  knew  to  be  the  general  consent 
of  the  Church  ?  Not  only  individual  Doctors,  but 
whole  Universities,  Religious  Orders,  Provincial 
Churches,  have  been  found  to  disagree  in  their 
inter})retation  of  what  was  the  doctrine  on  certain 
points  of  the  Eeclesia  dispersa.  Now,  this  can 
not  be  said  of  any  decision  by  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff; it  has  always  been  sufficiently  explicit  to 
carry  its  meaning  with  it,  and  the  only  dispute 
was  the  unwillingness  on  the  part  of  some  to 
acknowledge,  that  they  had  held  the  error  which 
he  condemned.  The  consent  of  the  Church  dis- 
persed, would  be  of  little  avail  to  silence  a  dis- 
cussion or  controversy,  whilst,  to  use  the  language 
of  the  Fathers,  a  Papal  decision  is  a  sword  in  the 
hands  of  the  Pastors,  with  wliicli  to  cleave  away 
the  hydra-heads  of  heresy. 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   EEASON.  267 

But  let  us  here  say  a  few  words  concerning  the 
chief  reason  which  influences  our  opponents  in 
their  resistance  to  our  thesis.  They  are  loath  to 
acknowledge  that  a  single  individual,  in  other 
things  liable  to  error,  should  be  even  in  any  way 
held  infallible.  They  fail  to  grasp  the  distinction 
between  the  personal  and  the  official  action,  and 
to  understand,  how  this  infallibility  is  restricted 
to  the  Pope  defining  or  teaching  the  universal 
Church,  in  which  there  is  no  such  cause  of  ap- 
prehension, as  they  seem  to  entertain,  and  no 
contradiction  or  repugnance  to  the  Providence  of 
our  Lord  over  His  Church. 

It  is  not  for  himself  or  for  his  personal  ad- 
vantage that  such  a  claim  is  made,  but  for  the 
good  of  the  Churcli,  when  he  addresses  it  as  its 
Head  and  Cliief  Pastor. 

The  prerogative,  if  it  has  been  granted  at  all,  as 
we  claim,  has  been  granted  by  One  who  can  as 
easily  confer  it  on  a  single  individual  as  on  the 
whole  Church. 

Reason,  moreover,  jcan  recognize  in  such  a  pro- 
vision of  Almighty  God,  that  which  commends 
itself  as  becoming  and  adapted  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Church,  which  He  designs  to  pro- 
tect, and  the  usual  method  pursued  by  Him  in 
the  supernatural  sphere.  For,  as  we  have  said 
before,  so  here  we  repeat,  that  it  is  fit  that  the 


268 


Churcli,  as  a  visible  kingdom,  should  have  a  vis- 
ible head,  and  that  the  head  of  it  should  possess 
the  great  privilege  which  characterizes  and  sets 
apart  that  Kingdom  of  Truth  from  every  possi- 
bility of  being  subverted  by  error. 

Reason  expects  that  since  Christ  has  promised 
the  end — the  preservation  of  His  Church  from 
error — so,  too,  He  has  promised  and  provided 
the  means  to  the  end;  and  among  all  those  that 
are  discussed,  we  can  not  find  any  better  adapted 
in  itself,  more  consonant  to  His  promises  and 
more  easily  recognizable  in  actual  history  than 
that  which  our  thesis  defends. 

Reason  discerns  no  advantage,  which  is  gained 
by  attributing  infallibility  to  many,  taken  col- 
lectively, rather  than  to  one  placed  at  their 
head.  The  influencing  of  the  many  by  Divine 
Power  would  seem,  humanly  speaking,  a  greater 
exercise  of  Omnipotence  than  the  direction  of 
a  single  individual.  Observation  of  the  ways 
of  Divine  Providence  shows  what  we  may 
call  a  divine  parsimony  of  force,  in  equaling 
the  means  to  the  end,  but  not  in  wasting  it 
or  eifecting  in  a  complex  and  circuitous  man- 
ner what  is  as  well  done  by  a  simpler  way. 
The  analogy  of  nature  to  grace  leads  reason,  then, 
to  expect  a  similar  disposition  in  the  higher  or- 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  269 

cler,  and  prepares  her  to  hear  that  one  person 
has  been  invested  with  infallibility,  when,  as  she 
must  acknowledge,  the  investing  of  that  one  is 
just  as  effective  and  useful,  to  say  the  least,  as 
would  be  the  endowment  of  the  many.  It  is 
such  a  train  of  argument  as  the  scholastics  em- 
body in  their  axioms :  ^^Dei  Sapientia  noti  opera- 
tur  superflua  " — God^s  wisdom  acts  not  uselessly ; 
and,  ^'Entia  non  simt  muUipUcanda  '^— being-s  or 
agents  are  not  to  be  multiplied  without  neces- 
sity. Now,  the  infallibility  of  the  many,  in  our 
opponents'  theories,  always  involves  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  one  confirming  or  rejecting;  to  what 
purpose,  then,  was  their  infallibility? 

There  is  still  another  analogy  to  which  we 
may  appeal.  God,  in  His  divine  Providence, 
loves  to  make  use  of  creatures  as  He  made  them, 
and  to  allow  the  cooperation  of  human  endeav- 
ors and  efforts  even  in  the  order  of  grace.  He 
employs  human  prudence,  exertion,  and  ability, 
and  comes  in  to  complete  and  carry  to  perfection 
the  work  which  they  fail  of  themselves,  when  alone, 
to  accomplish.  He  connects  even  His  miraculous 
operations  with  human  action.  Thus  He  appoints 
Moses,  educated  as  an  Egyptian  prince,  the 
leader  and  lawgiver  of  His  chosen  people ;  He 
selects  a  St.  Paul,  versed  in  the  science  of  his  age, 
as  an  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  and  a  teacher  in 


270  THE  RATIO  THEOLOGICA, 

the  Areopagus.  So,  too,  the  position  of  the  E,o- 
man  Pontiff,  according  to  our  adversaries'  admis- 
sion, as  Primate,  the  center  of  communication, 
surrounded  by  the  chief  Doctors  and  Theologians 
of  the  Church,  preeminently  suggests  the  design 
of  making  him  the  investigator  of  doctrine,  the 
expounder  of  truth,  and  the  judge  of  contro- 
versy. In  thus  making  him  the  final  arbiter 
in  matters  of  faith,  Divine  Providence  actually 
makes  another  and  beautiful  application  of  the 
words :  ^' Pertingens  a  fine  usque  infinem,  et  dispo^ 
nens  otimia  fortiter,  suaviterqueJ^  How  much 
more  powerfully  and  sweetly,  through  one  the 
end  is  obtained,  than  in  a  collective  infalli- 
bility, which  is  hardly  compatible  with  human 
frailty,  as  is  shown  by  the  common  proverb: 
^'Quot  capita  tot  sententioe  ;'' — ^^So  many  minds, 
so  many  opinions.'^  This  power  and  gentle 
force  of  action  we  have  had  occasion  to  witness 
in  our  historical  evidence,  where  we  have  seen 
it  repeatedly  victorious,  as  in  the  case  of  Beren- 
garius,  Fenelon,  and  others  of  our  own  times, 
while  on  the  other  hand  we  have  found  the 
massive  strength  and  momentum  of  a  Council 
for  the  most  only  efficient  to  crush  or  destroy 
error,  not  to  save  the  erring,  and  the  silent  and 
passive  protest  of  the  Church  dispersed  alto- 
gether inefficient  and  unheeded.     Therefore,  we 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   EEASON.  271 

may  say  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  '^Invisibilia 
ipsius  i^r  m,  qua^  facta  sunt,  intelkda  oonspi- 
Giuntur,""^  "  His  invisible  things  are  seen,  being 
understoood  by  the  things  that  are  created."  The 
acknowledgment  of  this  one  Power,  Right,  or 
Privilege  of  the  Holy  See  averts  all  possibility 
of  disunion  in  faith.  Here  especially  to  err  in 
one  is  to  fail  in  all ;  to  mistake  the  organ  of  in- 
fallibility is  to  expose  one^s  self  to  the  danger  of 
a  lapse  in  the  faith.  The  Greek  schismatical 
Church  is  a  noted  and  lamentable  case  in  point. 
They  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Univer- 
sal Church,  but  having  refused  to  hearken  to 
the  voice  of  Peter,  and  having  refused  to  recog- 
nize his  prerogative,  they  are  a  withered,  dying 
remnant,  instead  of  enjoying  the  strong  and  ac- 
tive life  of  the  Spouse  of  Christ.  "  Thence,"  to 
apply  the  words  of  St.  Cyprian,  "come  all  heresy 
and  schism,  because  the  one  Judge  in  the  place 
of  Christ,  the  judgment  of  the  High  Priest,  the 
Head  of  the  Church  is  not  respected  as  it  ought 
to  be."  Let  all  acknowledge  to-day  this  one  Pre- 
rogative, there  would  be  to-morrow  but  the  one 
united  Church,  in  Xorth,  South,  East,  and  West. 
For  a  philosophical  and  theological  mind  the 
last   reflection  should  have  great  weight,  since 

*  Ep.  Rom.  i,  20. 


272  THE   EATIO  THEOLOGICA, 

the  unity  of  the  Church,  its  greatest,  most  glo- 
rious mark  is  thus  best  shown  and  guarded  in 
the  unfailing  faith  and  authority  of  Peter  and 
his  successors. 

Finally,  the  essential  Charac^'  of  the  Church 
on  earth,  and  the  very  Name  consecrated  by 
Catholic  tradition  to  the  See  of  St.  Peter  in 
Rome,  serve  to  corroborate  our  thesis. 

We  say,  first,  the  essential  character  of  the 
Church  on  earth  corroborates  it;  because  the 
Church  on  earth  is  called  the  "militant  Church.^' 
This  is  her  essential  character ;  because,  according 
to  Christ's  own  words,  she  is  exposed  at  every 
moment,  at  every  time  in  every  place  on  the 
globe,  to  the  attacks  of  the  powers  of  hell.  Now, 
the  common  sense  of  all  nations,  at  all  times, 
barbarous  or  civilized,  finds  it  wise  and  best,  at 
the  time  of  an  impending  battle,  to  place  at  the 
head  of  the  army  one  leading  General  invested 
with  absolute  power.  Even  in  our  own  strug- 
gle, in  the  civil  w^ar,  it  was  proclaimed  by  the 
highest  authority  of  the  Republic,  "Better  to 
have  one  bad  general  in  command,  than  two  good 
ones.''  If  men  generally  understand  the  con- 
venience of  such  an  arrangement  in  time  of  war, 
and  agree  to  the  principle  of  concentrating  all 
power  in  the  hands  of  one  Commander-in-chief, 
why  should  not    reason    find  it  ex]^)edient    that 


OTl    EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  273 

Christ  having  left  His  Church  on  the  bat- 
tle-field, exposed  day  and  night,  and  over  the 
^vhole  world  to  the  attacks  of  its  enemies,  should 
place  at  the  head  of  it  one  individual  in  com- 
mand— the  Roman  Pontiff,  the  Successor  of  St. 
Peter — endowed  with  absolute  and  unerring  au- 
thority in  matters  of  faith,  to  guarantee  forever 
in  the  simplest  and  most  efficacious  way  the  vic- 
tory to  this  His  Church. 

Considering  the  character  of  the  Church,  also, 
out  of  the  battle-field,  in  her  normal  state,  in  re- 
gard to  her  own  constitution  and  spiritual  life, 
St.  Paul  compares  her  to  the  constitution  of  the 
human  body.*  The  Church  is  a  visible,  but 
mystical  body.  St.  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to 
follow  this  comparison  in  its  consequences. 
Now,  the  body,  in  its  actions  in  regard  to 
rational  life,  depends  on  the  influence  of  the 
head.  The  light  by  which  man  is  guided,  in  the 
actions  of  rational  life,  is  reason,  which  resides 
in  the  head,  and  even  in  a  single  and  individual 
head. 

What  reason  is  for  man  as  to  his  rational  life, 
faith  is  in  regard  to  his  supernatural  life.  AVell 
then,  following  closely  the  analogical  parallel 
given  by  St.  Paul,  reason  finds  it  very  appro- 
priate that   the  strength  and  influence  of  faith 

*  1  Cor.  c.  6  et  10  ;  ad  Eph.  c.  4;  ad  Col.  2. 


274  THE   RATIO   THEOLOGICA, 

should  have  been  placed  by  Christ  in  the  visible 
Head  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff, as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  for  whose  faith 
alone  He  prayed.  And  reason  approves  the  fact, 
that  this  Head  of  the  mystical  body  of  the 
Church  is  a  single  and  individual  one ;  because, 
pursuing  the  parallel  given  by  St.  Paul,  a  collec- 
tive Head  would  appear  rather  to  be  a  monstro- 
sity. 

We  said,  second,  that  the  very  Name  conse- 
crated by  Catholic  tradition  to  the  See  of  Rome 
likewise  corroborates  our  thesis.  The  See  of 
Rome  is  preeminently  called  the  Apostolic  See, 
and  what  else  could  that  mean  than  Apostolic 
Right,  Power,  and,  therefore.  Authority;  but 
this  is  Infallibility  in  matters  of  faith.  Or,  are 
you  prepared  to  say,  that  the  Apostles,  when 
teaching  the  faithful  in  matters  of  faith  and 
morals,  could  have  erred?  Suppose  St.  Paul 
had  written  the  "Syllabus,"  and  had  sent  it  to 
the  churches,  would  you  then  doubt  of  its  infal- 
lible character?  Therefore,  were  the  Apostles 
called  Apostles  because  specially  selected  and 
sent  to  preach  infallibly  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
inspired  in  this  and  enlightened  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  "  Go  teach  all  nations^  whatsoever  I  have 
said  unto  youJ^  This  was  the  mission,  the  au- 
thority that  justified  their  dispersing  themselves 


OR   EVIDENCE   OF   REASON.  275 

throughout  the  world  without  apprehendiog  a 
diversity  of  teacliing  or  a  severance  of  unit}^. 
AVhat  was  extraordinary  in  the  others  remained 
in  Peter  and  his  successors  as  the  ordinary  foun- 
dation of  unity  and  divinit}^  of  faith.  Hence 
his  See  remains  the  Apostolic  See,  involving  in 
the  name,  unless,  it  be  mere  irony,  the  same 
Apostolic  Infallibility.  Our  thesis  is  true,  or 
the  whole  Church,  in  giving  this  name,  but  re- 
peats a  falsehood,  or  inflicts  a  sneer.  We  would 
not  so  blaspheme  the  Spouse  of  Christ;  and,  ac- 
cepting the  name  she  gives,  we  acknowledge  its 
significance  and  truth,  and  confess  that  Peter 
still  lives  and  speaks  in  Rome  when  Rome's 
Bishop,  his  successor,  warns,  exhorts,  controls, 
directs  the  flock  of  Christ  which  He  intrusted  to 
Simon  Bar-Jona,  who  was  Peter,  the  Rock. 


OBJECTIONS  REFUTED 


There  is  no  trutli,  however  evident,  which 
has  not  been  the  subject  of  objections,  arising 
either  from  misunderstanding,  prejudice,  igno- 
rance, or  the  intentional  malice  of  men  whose 
interest  it  was  to  impugn  the  truth.  This  is 
especially  the  case  in  matters  of  faith.  This  as- 
sertion is  amply  proved  by  the  history  of  heresy. 
Were  it  not  a  matter  of  record,  we  could  scarcely 
credit  with  what  a  mass  of  misrepresentation, 
sophis-try,  and  distortion,  heretics  in  different 
ages  have  attacked  the  several  articles  of  divine- 
ly-revealed truth.  It  is  not  precisely  with  such 
antagonists  that  we  now  pretend  to  treat,  since  it 
would  be  almost  useless  to  contend  with  those 
who  willfully  close  their  eyes  that  they  may  not 
see.  We  prefer  to  address  ourselves  to  those 
who  sincerely  believe  their  objections  to  be  well 

1277J 


278  OBJECTIONS  EEFUTED. 

founded  and  destructive  of  our  thesis.  We  pro- 
pose to  consider  their  difficulties,  and,  in  our 
answers,  to  give  them  entire  satisfaction. 

OBJECTION  I. 

"  There  would  he  no  use  for  a  General  Coun- 
cil, if  the  Pope  can  define  the  truth  by. 
himself  alone.  But  General  Councils 
have  been  convoked  by  the  Popes  them- 
selves, for  the  suppression  of  heresy ; 
consequently  they  themselves  did  not  con- 
sider their  own  decisions  infallible,  and 
did  not  think  others  possessed  of  that 
belief'' 

Answer. — The  convocation  and  action  of 
General  Councils  in  latter  times  are  no  more  in 
contradiction  with  our  thesis  than  the  convocation 
and  action  of  the  first  Council  at  Jerusalem, 
where  there  was  question  of  matters  of  faith,  and 
in  which  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  and  the  other  Apos- 
tles took  part.  Such  Councils  have  been  convoked 
for  the  purpose  of  acting  more  powerfully  in  the 
suppression  of  heresy,  and  more  completely  depriv- 
ing it  of  its  mask  of  orthodoxy ;  and  especially 
in  order  that,  by  the  departure  of  their  Bishops, 
the  several  flocks  may  have  their  attention  more 
vividly  excited,  and,  on  their  return,  they  may 


OBJECTIOXS   EEFUTED.  279 

be  more  easily  and  efficaciously  instructed  con- 
cerning the  decision  and  the  sentence  there  passed 
upon  the  heresy  or  its  originator.  Moreover,  it 
has  happened  more  than  once,  that,  in  such 
Councils,  others  were  found  to  have  participated 
in  the  error  who  were,  till  then,  undiscovered, 
and  who,  had  they  not  been  unmasked  and  re- 
moved from  their  Sees,  might  have  continued  to 
prove  wolves  for  the  destruction  of  tlie  flock 
committed  to  their  care. 

General  Councils  offer  this  additional  advan- 
tage, that  they  unite  the  talents,  zeal,  and  expe- 
rience of  so  many  illustrious  pastors  of  the 
Church,  for  the  preservation  of  the  faith  and  the 
extirpation  of  the  cancer,  which,  by  spreading, 
would  endanger  its  purity  and  its  very  existence, 
and,  in  addition,  to  offer  an  opportunity,  by  coun- 
sel, advice,  and  wise  regulations,  to  contribute  to 
the  better  discipline  of  the  faithful,  and  enable 
them  to  advance  more  easily  and  securely  in  the 
j^ath  of  Christian  perfection. 

What  we  have  said  in  a  preceding  chapter,  on 
the  history  and  proceedings  of  General  Councils, 
confirms  our  present  reasoning,  so  clearly  illus- 
trated by  the  action  of  the  Apostolical  Council 
at  Jerusalem. 

St.  Paul  had  condemned  Cerinth  for  attempt- 
ing to  Judaise  the  Gentile  converts,  and  so  cer- 


280  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

tain  was  he  of  the  truth  of  his  decision,  that  he 
dared  to  say  that  even  an  angel  from  Heaven, 
preaching  another  Gospel  from  his  owd,  should 
be  anathematized.  Nevertheless,  seeing  the  ob- 
stinacy of  his  opponent  and  the  virulence  of  the 
converts  from  Judaism,  he  went  to  Jerusalem. 
The  Council  assembled,  St.  Peter  spoke  and  de- 
cided the  question,  and  St.  James,  after  having 
assented  to  his  decision,  proposed  an  ordinance  to 
enforce  the  proper  discipline,  and  so  the  error  was 
fully  suppressed,  more  quickly  and  efficaciously 
tlian  it  could  have  been  by  the  authority  of  St. 
Paul,  infallible  as  it  surely  was  in  matter  of  faith. 
This  reenforcement  of  infallible  authority  by 
a  Council  is  pointed  out  by  St.  Leo  the  Great, 
when  speaking  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of 
Chalcedon  :  "  Truth  is  more  vividly  seen,  and 
more  tenaciously  held,  when  that  which  God 
has  defined  by  our  ministry  has  been  confirmed 
by  the  consent  of  our  brethren.'^*  How  far 
Leo  considered  this  consent  as  a  necessary 
condition  of  the  truths  of  the  faith  there  in- 
culcated, is  manifest  from  the  previous  expres- 
sions, in  which  he  says  that  faith  had  already 
spoken  through  the  Pope,  and  that  God  Himself 
had  defined  it  through  his  ministry.  This  rela- 
tion between  a  Papal  definition  and  the  judg- 

*  See  his  Epist.  ad  Theod. 


OBJECTIONS  REFUTED.  281 

ment  of  a  General  Connoil  is  made  still  more 
evident  by  what  Leo  did,  agreeing  in  this  with 
all  his  predecessors  and  successors,  in  positively 
prohibiting  discussion,  in  the  Council,  as  to 
matters  of  faith  pre\4ously  defined  by  the  Su- 
preme Pontiff.*  And,  as  we  have  proved  when 
treating  of  the  General  Councils,  this  was  always 
the  case  when,  as  in  this  instance,  a  Papal  defi- 
nition had  preceded  the  Council.  Moreover,  as 
we  have  previously  shown,  there  never  was  an 
CEcumenical  Council  which  would  have  ventured 
to  dispute  this  right,  to  disregard  his  veto,  or  to 
give  the  slightest  sign  of  overturning  his  decis- 
ion. Nay,  so  conscious  have  these  great  Popes 
shown  themselves  of  tliis  right,  t^at,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  whole  Episcopacy  united  in  General 
Council,  they  would  not  tolerate  decrees  or  dec- 
larations which  embodied  the  same  doctrine,  but 
in  words  different  from  those  by  which  they 
themselves  had  defined  the  truth.  Such  was  the 
course  of  Popes  like  Leo,  whom  the  Greeks  have 
held  in  honor  even  to  our  own  times.  ^^  Either 
use  the  icords  of  Leo,  or  we  return  to  Rome/'  said 
the  Legates,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions 
which  they  had  received  from  that  Pontiff. 
Such,  too,  was  the  course  pursued  on  all  other 
occasions  when  the  Pontiff  had  once  delivered 

♦Leo,  Ep.  82,  c.  1,  2;  Ep.  90,  c.  2;  Ep.  93  et  94. 


282  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

liis  decision,  whether  he  had   to   do  with   the 
Church  at  large  or  in  Council  assembled. 

In  later  times,  especially  for  the  Councils  held 
at  the  Lateran,  when  there  were  no  errors  of 
sufficient  importance  or  prominence  to  be  con- 
demned, the  Bulls  of  Convocation  assigned,  as 
the  principal  reason  of  their  being  convoked,  the 
wish  to  promote  fervor  by  the  enactment  and  ex- 
ecution of  disciplinary  regulations.  The  utility 
of  a  General  Council  in  such  cases  is  beyond  a 
doubt — affording  the  many  Bishops  and  Prelates 
the  advantage  of  mutual  counsel  and  communi- 
cation, without,  however,  impairing  or  question- 
ing the  authority  of  the  Pontiff  in  matters  of 
faith.  In  the  ^3articular  instance  of  the  Third 
Lateran  Council,  the  Prelates  occupied  them- 
selves exclusively  with  matters  of  discipline, 
leaving  all  questions  concerning  the  faith  to  the 
action  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  then  Alexander 
III,  in  case  he  deemed  proper  to  act,  as  in  fact  he 
did,  by  condemning  the  errors  of  Peter  the  Lom- 
bard, Bishop  of  Paris,  and  this,  too,  independent- 
ly, without  consulting  the  members  of  the  Council 
then  assembled  around  him.  Moreover,  as  we 
have  previously  remarked,  it  is  idle  to  argue 
against  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  from  the  con- 
vocation and  authority  of  a  General  Council,  since 
all  Catholics  ao:ree  in  the  admission  that  the  lat- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  283 

ter  has  no  binding  authority  when  not  confirmed. 
The  logical  conclusion  of  such  admission  is,  the 
personal  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  for,  in  confirm- 
ing a  definition  of  a  General  Council,  or  in  re- 
fusing to  do  so,  he  is  either  fallible  or  he  is  not. 
If  he  be  fallible,  then  he  can  never,  even  by  his 
adlicsion,  impart  infallibility  to  the  definition ; 
if  not  fallible,  our  thesis  is  proved.  We  can  see 
no  logical  escape  from  this  dijemma.  The  di- 
lemma is  as  fiital  as  that  which  we  urge  against 
the  Protestant.  Either  Christ  spoke  the  truth 
when  He  said  "  that  tlie  gates  of  hell  sliould 
never  prevail  against  His  Church,"  or  he  did 
not.  If  the  latter,  He  was  not  the  Son  of  God ; 
if  the  former,  then  His  Church  has  never  changed 
and  shall  never  change  in  matters  of  faith ;  and, 
hence,  there  never  was,  and  never  can  be  justifi- 
cation for  any  separation  or  secession  from  the 
Church ;  and  no  other  reasoning  is  needed  to  de- 
termine that  Protestantism  is  unjustifiable. 

The  sun,  indeed,  is  not  afraid  of  clouds,  the 
power  of  its  light  dissolves  them,  and  it  then 
shines  with  more  brilliancy  than  ever.  Such  is 
the  effect  of  truth  iu  regard  to  objections. 


284  OBJECTIONS  EEFUTED. 


OBJECTION  n. 

"i/"  these  things  he  true,  the  Bishops  of  the 
Council  are  not  sitting  or  acting  as 
Judges,  but  simply  as  the  Heralds  of  the 
Pope's  definition.  Now,  not  the  latter, 
but  the  former  is  the  case,  since  tliey  de- 
fine, as  is  proven  by  the  usual  sub- 
scriptions, ^.definiens  subscripsi/" 

Answer. — It  is  true  that  the  Bishops  do  ex- 
amine, as  Judges,  the  matter  brought  before 
them  in  Council,  and  their  subscription  is  rightly- 
called  a  definition,  but  neither  their  judicial  char- 
acter, nor  their  subscription,  can  be  proved  to 
be  in  conflict  or  contradiction  with  the  supreme 
rights  and  privileges  oC  the  Pope,  or  the  infalli- 
bility of  his  decisions. 

A  definition  is  rightly  called  such,  even 
though  it  do  not  pretend  to  infallibility,  and  a 
Judge  may  be  really  a  judge,  without  being  the 
last  and  supreme  expounder  of  the  law.  Doc- 
tors of  divinity  make  many  a  definition,  for 
which  they  would  be  the  first  to  disclaim  in- 
fallibility. In  all  governments  there  are  judges, 
in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  who  pronounce 
judgments  in  accordance  with  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the   law,  but   without   pretending  that 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  285 

their  decision  is  final,  and  without  disputing  the 
right  of  the  Supreme  Justice  to  review,  confirm, 
amend,  or  revoke  their  sentence. 

A  Judge  has  a  rule  before  him,  the  law  of  the 
country,  and  he  must  strive  to  decide  according 
to  its  dictates.  For  the  Bishops,  that  rule  is 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  grounded  on  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  tradition. 
By  their  ^^definiens  subscripsl'^  the  Bishops  de- 
clare, that  the  definition  of  the  Council  to  which 
they  subscribe,  in  their  conviction,  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  faith  based  upon  tlie  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  tradition.  When  it  is  confirmed  by  the 
Papal  approbation,  the  Divine  Law  is  more 
clearly  expressed  by  the  definition,  and  the 
Bishops,  acting  as  Judges,  declare  it  to  be  their 
faith  also,  and  by  their  subscription,  announce 
its  accordance  with  the  normal  rule  of  faith. 
We  would  recall  in  this  connection  what  we  be- 
fore mentioned  concerning  the  subscription  of 
the  Bishops  to  the  acts  of  the  Eighth  General 
Council:  '^I,  N.  K,  Bishop  of  N.,  have  sub- 
scribed the  profession  of  faith  made  by  me  in 
the  person  of  his  Holiness,  Pope  Adrian,  Su- 
preme Pontiff." 

By  such  a  declaration,  they  affirm  w^ith  St. 
Jerome,  that  they  believe  with  the  faith  of  the 
Head   of  the  Church;    that  his  faith   is   their 


286  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

faith ;  that  that  is  an  article  of  faith  which  he, 
as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  pronounces  to  be 
such,  and  their  ^'dejiniens  subscripsi "  is  to  show 
that  they  were  aware  of  what  they  did,  and  in- 
tended it,  and  it  was  to  be  the  evidence  that  such 
faith  was  the  faith  of  the  whole  Church.  In 
farther  illustration  of  this  explanation,  we  would 
allude  to  that  jurisdiction  which  each  Bishop  cer- 
tainly has  and  exercises  in  his  own  diocese.  This 
jurisdiction,  with  the  sentences  which  he  pro- 
nounces in  exercising  it,  does  not  detract  from, 
still  less  deny  that  general  and  superior  jurisdic- 
tion which  the  Head  of  the  Church  possesses  over 
him  and  the  whole  Church.  The  Bishops  are 
Judges  established  by  Christ  over  their  respective 
dioceses,  to  guard  the  faith  and  discipline,  but  still 
they  are  subordinate  judges. 

Has  not  Christ  assured  us  that  the  Apostles 
will  judge  the  world  on  the  last  day?  But 
surely  their  judicial  dignity  will  not  impair  that 
of  Christ,  who  is  to  judge  them  and  the  whole 
world.  Neither  then  does  a  subordinate  judi- 
cial authority  impair  that  of  the  Supreme  Pon- 
tiff judging  in  the  last  resort.  If  it  were  pre- 
tended that  the  definition  of  a  Bishop  in  a  Gen- 
eral Council  had  any  other  than  this  subordinate 
value,  it  would  follow  that  such  a  subscription 
would  be  valid  by  itself  alone,  and  would  not 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  287 

need  the  confirmation  of  the  Head  of  the  Church. 
But  this  is  clear  nonsense;  because  it  would,  if 
it  proves  any  thing,  prove  the  infallibility  of  each 
Bishop;  an  absurdity  which  never  yet  entered 
the  head  of  any  body.  Once  more,  then,  Bishops 
in  General  Council  assembled,  have  a  judicial 
character,  but  their  "definiens  subscripsi^'  does 
not  finally  settle  a  matter  of  faith. 

'     OBJECTION  III. 

*^The  Popes  theimehes  have  declared  that  they 
could  not  depart  from  the  decmons  of 
General  Councils.  If  they  had  thought 
themselves  superior  to  the  Council,  they 
could  not  have  made  such  a  declara- 
tion.^' 

Answer. — When  the  decisions  of  such  Councils 
set  forth  matters  of  faith,  it  is  evident  that  the 
Pope  can  not  depart  from  them ;  for,  confirmed,  as 
is  supposed,  by  the  Pope,  they  give  us  the  truth, 
the  Divine  law,  and  no  Pope  claims  or  can  claim 
to  be  superior  to  that.  The  supposition  that  he 
could,  or  would  do  so,  is  simply  absurd,  since  he 
would  thereby  deny  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  Church,  and  debar  himself  from  asserting  it 
for  his  own  decisions,  with  the  consequent  obli- 
gation of  the  flock's  assenting  thereunto.     The 


288  OBJECTIONS  EEPUTED. 

logical  consequence  of  the  Pope's  infallibility  pre- 
supposes that  he  will  not,  and  can  not  reverse 
i;he  decision  of  his  predecessors  in  matters  of 
faith. 

As  regards  disciplinary  decrees  and  ordina- 
tions of  General  Councils  confirmed  by  the  Pope, 
the  case  is  different.  But  even  so,  the  Pontiff, 
notwithstanding  his  power  to  modify  or  abro- 
gate such  ecclesiastical  provisions,  might  still  use 
such  a  form  of  words,  in  view  of  his  conscien- 
tious obligation,  not  to  act  in  such  things  in  an 
arbitrary  manner.  Such  resolutions  and  decrees 
of  General  Councils  are  made  w^ith  the  utmost 
care,  prudence,  and  wisdom,  by  the  advice,  and 
with  the  counsel  of  learned  and  pious  prelates  of 
the  Church.  They  are  not  then  to  be  lightly 
disregarded,  changed,  or  revoked,  otherwise  there 
would  be  a  manifest  abuse  of  power  to  which 
jnight  be  justly  applied  the  reproach  of  St.  Ber- 
nard :  "  You  do  it,  because  you  have  the  power 
to  do  so ;  but  whether  you  should  do  it,  is  an- 
other question."  "Facitis  quia  potestis,  sed  utrum 
etiam  debeatisj  qucestio  est.'' 

The  power  which  the  Pope  has  received  to 
rule  the  Church  is  not  given  for  destruction, 
but  for  edification,  as  St.  Paul  affirmed  of  the 
Apostolical  power  given  to  himself —  "  non  in 
destructlonemj  sed  in  cedifieationemj'    This  is  the 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  289 

"reason  of  the  Pontiffs  regarding  with  so  much 
respect  the  decrees  of  Oecumenical  Councils,  con- 
firmed by  his  predecessors.  And  for  the  same 
reason  they  have  always  looked  with  reverence 
and  respect  upon  the  ordinances  of  the  Popes, 
their  predecessors.  They  have  often  declared 
that  they  intended  in  nowise  to  recede  from 
such  ordinances,  and  have  even  called  them  un- 
changeable and  irreformable,  as  did  Adrian  II,  in 
regard  to  the  decrees  and  ordinances  of  Nicholas. 
Could  any  one  thence  infer  that  the  Papal  au- 
thority of  Nicholas  was  superior  to  that  of  Adrian 
II,  or  that  of  Pius  VI  to  that  of  Pius  VII,  or 
of  Gregory  XVI  to  that  of  Pius  IX  ? 

But  notwithstanding  this  reverence  for  the  dis- 
ciplinary enactments  of  Councils  and  of  their 
predecessors,  the  Popes  have  ever  been  conscious 
of  that  plenitude  of  Apostolic  power  attached  to 
their  office  and  dignity  as  Head  of  the  Church, 
whereby  they  could,  and,  on  occasion,  would  re- 
strict, change,  or  abolish  ecclesiastical  regulations, 
no  matter  by  what  ecclesiastical  authority  intro- 
duced, just  so  soon  as  they  thought  it  better  for 
the  Church  in  their  age.  No  Catholic  will  ever 
dispute  this  power  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  as 
Pope  Benedict  justly  asserts  in  his  work,  "Z)6 
Synodo  Diocesana,''  where  he  says  :  "  That  the 
Pope  has  received  from  Christ  our  Lord  the 
25 


290  OBJECTIONS  REFITTED. 

power  of  his  own  authority,  to  relax  or  abrogate 
any  merely  ecclesiastical  law,  no  Catholic  doubts." 
^' Pontijicem  habere  a  Christo  Domino  concessam 
potestatem  omnem  legem  ecdesiastieam  propina  auc- 
toritate  relaxandi,  vet  penitus  abrogandi,  a  nemine 
Catholicorum  in  dubium  avocatur,'^  *  Of  this  we 
have  evident  proof,  and  that,  too,  in  a  Pontiff 
especially  distinguished  for  his  modesty,  Gregory 
the  Great.  He,  who  had  declared  that  he  ac- 
cepted the  first  four  General  Councils  of  the 
Church  as  he  did  the  Gospels,  nevertheless,  in 
favor  of  the  English  nation,  abrogated  the  law 
of  the  Church,  in  respect  to  marriages  among 
kindred  of  the  seventh  degree." 

There  was  an  axiom  among  the  scholastic 
Doctors,  affirming:  "He  that  distinguishes 
well,  can  teach  well."  '^Qui  bene  distinguit, 
bene  doceV^  In  regard  to  the  present  objection, 
and  all  those  to  which  we  shall  yet  reply,  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  difficulties  are  only  ap- 
parent, originating  from  mistatement,  confusion 
of  ideas,  and  want  of  careful  discrimination. 

*  De  Synod  Dioces.,  1.  2,  c.  s.  num.  3. 


OBJECTIONS   REFXJTED.  291 


ORJECTION  IV. 


''Did  not  the  General  Council  of  Constance 
and  that  of  Basel  solemnly  declare  that 
all  persons,  even  though  of  Papal  dig- 
nity, had  to  submit  to  its  ordinances? 
How  is  this  consistent  with  the  Apostolic 
plenitude  of  the  Papal  power  f  " 

Answer. — This  objection  we  have  already 
partially  answered,  when  speaking  of  the  Council 
of  Constance  in  a  preceding  chapter.  The  Coun- 
cil was  not  treating  of  the  authority  of  one  wlio 
was  undoubtedly  Pope,  but  of  aspirants  who  were 
doubtful  claimants  of  the  Papacy.  The  very  ex- 
pression, "  etiamsi  Papalis  dignitatis  existat,^^  is 
a  proof  of  the  intention  of  the  Council.  This  is 
evident  from  the  motive  of  its  convocation,  viz. : 
to  suppress  the  then  existing  and  deplorable 
Papal  schism,  when  there  was  more  than  one 
claimant  to  the  Papacy — each  one  strenuously 
urging  the  validity  of  his  election  and  denying 
that  of  the  others.  And  this,  too,  the  Council 
itself  declared,  by  a  decree  in  its  fortieth  session, 
in  these  words :  ''Papa  rite  et  canonice  electus,  a 
Coneilio  ligari  non  potest.''  "A  Pope,  rightly 
and  canonically  elected,  can  not  be  fettered  by  a 
Council.^' 


202  OBJECTIONS   EEFUTEB. 

This  is  the  only  sense  in  which  the  decree  cited 
against  us  can  be  interpreted,  since  otherwise  it 
would  be  plainly  heretical  in  fixing  the  Primacy, 
not  on  the  successor  of  Peter,  but  on  the  Episco- 
pacy separated  from  its  Head,  and  declaring  the 
decrees  of  such  Councils  valid  without  the  appro- 
bation and  confirmation  of  the  Pope,  since  the 
decree  speaks  of  obedience  to  the  Council  being 
the  duty  of  the  Pope,  "  debitam  ohedientiam?^  It 
would,  therefore,  establish  the  whole  source  of 
Infallibility  in  the  Episcopacy  separated  from 
their  Head,  thus  serving  only  the  cause  of  our 
common  adversaries,  "  nimis  probans,^^  and  would 
fall  under  the  condemnation  of  the  many  Coun- 
cils that  preceded  or  followed  the  Council  of 
Constance,  and  more  especially  the  Council  of 
Florence. 

Let  it  be  taken,  however,  in  whatever  sense  it 
may,  it  can  not  be  urged  against  us  as  a  decree 
of  a  General  Council,  since  it  was  never  approved 
by  Martin  V  or  by  any  other  Pope,  and  has, 
consequently,  no  Ecclesiastical  authority. 

Martin  confirmed  only  those  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Constance,  which  were  canonically 
made  and  promulgated,  which  was  by  no  means 
the  case  with  this  decree.  It  was  made  by  a 
part  only  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Council,  not  by 
all,  by  those  alone,  who  supported  John  XXIII, 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  293 

and  against  his  protest.  Those  also  who  sup 
ported  Gregory  XII  and  Benedict  XIII  pro- 
tested against  it 

Moreover,  it  was  not  carried  in  a  regular  ses- 
sion, but  in  a  meeting  of  those  Bishops  of  the 
clergy  in  general,  and  even  by  the  laity,  in  what 
might  be  almost  called  a  tumultuous  assembly, 
as  appears  from  the  protest  of  the  French  Em- 
bassador, read  in  the  Twenty-Eighth  Session, 
and  from  the  letters  of  John  XXIII  to  Ladis- 
las.  King  of  Poland,  and  to  tlie  Duke  of  Bourges, 
read  in  the  Sorbonne.  Peter  of  Ailly,  one  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council,  gives  this  testimony,  and 
he  was  an  eye-witness,  and  all  the  historians  con- 
firm it,  especially  Spondanus,  Mansi,  and  Em- 
manuel Schelstrade.* 

Finally,  the  decree,  taken  in  the  sense  of  our 
adversaries,  would  be  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
decree  of  Martin  V,  who,  in  a  Bull  addressed 
to  the  King  of  Poland,  condemned,  as  heretical, 
the  opinion  that  an  appeal  could  be  taken  from 
the  Pope  to  a  General  Council.  It  would  like- 
wise be  in  direct  opposition  to  the  declaration 
made  by  the  Fathers  of  that  same  Council,  in 

*  Ailly  :  de  Auctoritate  Eccles.  et  Cardin.  Mansi :  In  Anim- 
advers.  in  Deer.  s.  4  et  5  Con.  Const.  Tom.  II  Natalis.  Spon- 
danus :  ad  ann.  1418.  Emm-  Schelstrade  Dissert,  de  Seas.  4  ot 
5  Cone.  Const. 


294  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

tlie  Eighth  Session,  against  the  Wickliffites,  in 
which  they  deny  the  possibility  of  the  Roman 
See  falling  into  error  in  matters  of  faith,  since 
such  a  supposition  would  be  in  open  contradic- 
tion to  the  character  of  that  See,  and  to  the 
power  and  rights  with  which  it  has  been  divinely 
invested,  "to  be  the  Mother,  the  Teacher,  the 
head  of  all  the  Churches,  which  judges  all,  and 
can  not  be  judged  by  any  body,  so  that  every 
one  contradicting  its  teaching,  is  to  be  considered 
heretical.'^ 

So  speak  the  Fathers  of  this  Council  in  a  De- 
cree solemnly  published  against  the  followers  of 
Wickliife,  and  it  becomes  manifest,  therefore, 
how  vain  it  is  to  attach  any  other  meaning  to 
the  Decree  cited  above,  wherewith  to  justify  any 
attack  upon  the  privileges  and  rights  of  the 
Apostolic  See  in  matters  of  faith. 

As  for  the  Council  of  Basel,  we  would  not 
need  to  make  any  answer,  were  it  not  that  our 
adversaries  still  persist  in  quoting  it,  as  though 
they  were  not  aware  that  there  is  really  no  weight 
to  be  attached  to  its  decrees  opposing  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Pontiff  over  the  Council,  and  his 
infallibility  as  Supreme  Judge  in  matters  of 
faith.  They  should  know  that  all  the  proposi- 
tions of  that  Council  which  favor  their  opinion 
were  explicitly  condemned,  in   the  Council  of 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  295 

Florence,  by  Eugene  lY,  with  the  consent  of 
the  General  Council  then  assembled,  and  in  these 
words:  "All  these  propositions,  taken  in  the 
perverse  sense  of  the  Council  of  Basel,  we  con- 
demn and  reject  as  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, to  the  Holy  Fathei's,  and  even  to  the  Fa- 
thers of  the  Council  of  Constance,  and  as  scan- 
dalous and  godless." 

Besides,  every  real  theologian  should  know 
with  what  scorn  and  contempt  the  decrees  of  that 
Council  are  considered  by  men  such  as  St.  An- 
toninus and  St.  Capistran,  inasmuch  as,  shortly 
after  its  convocation,  it  betrayed  a  schismatical 
tendency  by  opposing  the  transference  of  the 
Council  to  Florence.  By  their  obstinacy,  the 
Bishops  remaining  at  Basel  had  no  longer  a 
claim  to  be  considered  a  Council,  much  less  a 
General  Council.  It  was  not  a  Council,  but  a 
cabal,  or,  according  to  St.  Antoninus,  "a  syna- 
gogue of  the  Devil."  *  "  Conciliabulum  viribus 
casswiij  et  synagogam  Satance/'  and,  according  to 
St.  John  of  Capistran,  "a  profane  and  excom- 
municated Synod,  and  a  den  of  serpents."! 
^^Synodum  profanam  et  excommunicafanh  et  Bci- 
siliscorum  speluncamj^  Our  adversaries  should 
seek  for  better  authorities  than  this  so-called 
Council  of  Basel. 

*"St.  Antoninus,  p.  3,  tit.  22.       f  De  Papae  et  Com.  auct.,  p.  3. 


296  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 


OBJECTION  VL 

To  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Fathers  and  the 
practice  of  the  Chu7'ch,  our  adversaries 
would  oppose  the  authority  and  example 
of  St.  Cyprian,  in  his  resistance  to  the 
ordinances  and  decisions  of  Pope  Ste- 
phen, 

Answer. — It  is  curious  how  frequently  the 
good  St.  Cyprian  is  brought  forward  to  help  the 
enemies  of  the  Holy  See  in  their  attacks  upon 
its  supremacy.  We  would  pity  him,  but  that  we 
remember  how  St.  Augustin  is  made  to  preach 
Jansenism,  and  how  St.  Paul  is  wrested  to  the 
defense  of  Protestantism. 

Let  us  review  the  argument  which  our  adver- 
saries essay  to  build  upon  the  authority  of  this 
Holy  Father.  It  is  this:  St.  Stephen  decided 
that  baptism  should  not  be  re-administered  to 
heretics  on  their  conversion  and  admission  into 
communion  with  the  Church.  St.  Cyprian,  nev- 
ertheless, insisted  on  the  contrary  practice,  and 
would  not  yield  to  the  authority  of  a  Pa})al  de- 
cision, and  therefore  did  not  believe  that  the 
Popes  were  invested  with  that  Supremacy  in 
matters  of  Faith  which  we  claim  for  them. 

We  answer:    First — Supposing,  for  the  sake 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  297 

of  argument,  that  St.  Cyprian  was  not  of  our 
opinion,  can  the  authority-  of  one  Father  out- 
weigh that  of  80  many  others  whose  testimony 
we  have  already  quoted  ? 

If,  instead  of  St.  Q^prian  only,  we  had  ar- 
rayed against  us  the  testimony  of  a  whole  pro- 
vince, it  would  not  diminish  the  authority  which 
follows  the  teaching  of  the  universal  Church. 
Individual  Fathers  and  provincial  Churches  can 
err,  and  have  erred,  without  impairing  that  au- 
thority, as  has  been  witnessed  in  the  Eastern 
schisms.  Therefore  we  should  still  say  with  St. 
Augustin,  "  I  do  not,  by  any  means,  regard  the 
letters  of  Cyprian  as  canonical;  but  I  rather  judge 
them  according  to  the  canons;  and  what  I  find  in 
them  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  I  receive  with  praise,  and  what  does 
not  so  agree,  I,  in  peace  with  him,  reject." 

Second — We  say  with  St.  Augustin,  what  St. 
Cyprian  believed  and  held  concerning  the  Papal 
authority  in  matters  of  faith,  is  not  to  be  deter- 
mined from  that,  which  he  said  or  did  in  excite- 
ment or  passion,  but  from  those  assertions  which 
he  penned  when  calm  and  disinterested.  At  least 
the  harshness  of  some  expressions  should  be  com- 
pared and  reconciled  with  other  declarations,  given 
at  other  times  and  in  different  circumstances, 
since  no  author  of  reputation  and  honor  Ls  to 


298  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

be  held  willing  to  stand  in  contradiction  with 
himself. 

Now  no  sincere  adversary  can  deny  that  St. 
Cyprian^  on  other  occasions,  most  publicly  and 
solemnly  recognized  and  asserted  the  same  Papal 
prerogative  and  rights  which  we  have  been  de- 
fending, as  we  have  shown  when  quoting  his  tes- 
timony among  those  of  the  other  Holy  Fathers. 
He  positively  declares  and  confesses  that  the  Ro- 
man Pontiff  is  the  Supreme  Judge,  in  the  place 
of  Christ;  that  is,  as  His  representative — that  all 
have  to  obey  him — and  that  if  all  would  but  do 
as  they  should  do,  submit  to  his  decisions,  there 
would  be  no  room  for  heresy  or  schism.  He 
most  explicitly  calls  the  Roman  Church  the  root 
and  mold  of  the  other  Churches."  ^^  Ecdesiam 
radicem  et  matricemJ' 

In  his  book  on  the  ^'  Unity  of  the  Church,"  he 
strongly  asserts:  that  every  one  who  separates 
himself  from  the  See  of  St.  Peter,  on  which  the 
Church  is  built,  separates  himself  from  the 
Church.  He  laughs  at  those  who  traveled  to 
Rome  to  essay  an  impossible  justification  of  them- 
selves, forgetful,  as  he  says,  "  that  Rome  can  not 
err.^^  How  can  a  man,  who  writes  in  this 
manner,  be  supposed  to  be  in  contradiction  with 
our  thesis  ? 

Do  we  not  act  more  prudently  and  fairly  with 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  299 

this  Father,  when  we  interpret  declarations  made 
in  a  moment  of  excitement,  not  in  themselves, 
but  by  the  light  obtained  from  declarations  made 
and  principles  laid  down  in  sober  judgment? 
And  did  not  Tertullian  also  resist  the  authority 
of  Apostolical  tradition,  although  he  had  written 
a  work  in  its  defense?  We  have  in  him  another 
sad  instance  how  far  one  may  be  misled  by  preju- 
dice and  self-love. 

Third — Supposing,  again,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  Cyprian  persevered  in  this  particular 
instance  of  resistance,  it  would  not  disprove  our 
thesis.  He  did  not  resist  a  decision  in  matters 
of  faith,  since  St.  Stephen  had  not  delivered  one, 
and  was  not  addressing  the  universal  Church. 
He  was,  at  most,  urging  that  what  he  regarded  as 
the  ancient  practice  of  the  Roman  Churcli  should 
be  retained.  Had  there  been  question  of  a  dog- 
matic decision,  and  St.  Cyprian  had  then  resisted, 
St.  Stephen,  as  Pontiff,  would  at  once  have  ex- 
cluded him  from  his  ecclesiastical  communion. 
This,  certainly,  was  not  done,  St.  Cyprian  re- 
maining united  with  St.  Stephen  in  ecclesiastical 
peace  and  union,  as  St.  Augustin  testifies  in  his 
book  on  Baptism.*  St.  Stephen  did,  indeed, 
hold    out    a    menace    of   excommunication,   but 

*St.  AugustiD,  Lib.  de  Bap.,  c.  25. 


300  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

wisely  and  prudently  forbore  to  urge  matters 
by  a  summary  decision  in  regard  to  such  a  dis- 
tinguished prelate  of  the  Church,  then  laboring 
under  undue  excitement.  Rome  knows  how  to 
wait  and  to  refrain  from  severity  so  long  as  there 
may  be  hope  of  prevailing  by  milder  means,  as 
Pope  Zosimus  acted  in  the  case  of  Coelestius. 
Admonitions  usually  precede  a  recourse  to  more 
stringent  measures.  St.  Cyprian  did  all  he  could 
to  avert  such  a  definitive  sentence,  but  if  St. 
Stephen  had  pronounced  one,  no  doubt  he  would 
have  submitted.  Stephen  had  the  more  reason, 
then,  to  proceed  with  the  utmost  patience  and 
moderation,  dealing,  as  he  did,  with  men  who 
stood  high  in  the  Church — Firmilian  and  others 
being  involved  with  Cyprian — and  knowing  the 
excitable  temperament  of  the  race  to  which  they 
belonged. 

Moreover,  it  is  very  probable  that  Cyprian 
finally  submitted,  even  without  a  formal  con- 
demnation. There  is  no  historical  document  to 
the  contrary,  while  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
some,  and  of  the  highest  authority,  which  make 
such  submission  more  than  probable.  Those  who 
wish  to  consult  them,  will  find  them  in  the 
works  of  Cabasutius,  Baroniiis,  Thomasinus,  Lu- 
dovicus  Bail,  and  other  Canonists.  Among  other 
testimonies  to  this  effect,  we  find  those  of  St.  Je- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  301 

rome*  and  St.  Aiigiistin.  The  latter  says  that 
it  seems  to  him  very  probable,  notwithstanding 
the  absence  of  direct  and  incontrovertible  proof; 
for,  he  adds :  "  Not  every  thing,  which  then  oc- 
curred, has  been  written,  nor  has  all  that  was 
written  descended  to  us.'' 

We  must  not  judge  those  times,  with  their 
difficulties  of  transcription,  and  communication, 
by  the  standard  of  modern  ages,  with  their  facili- 
ties of  the  press,  and  their  annihilation  of  time 
and  space. 

We  may  now  go  one  step  farther,  and  say,  that 
even  in  the  supposition  that  Cyprian  did  not 
submit,  and  really  entertained  the  belief  that  the 
Pope  was  not  infallible  in  his  decisions,  it  is  not 
clear  with  what  hope  of  success  our  adversaries 
could  appeal  to  his  authority.  Did  Cyprian  not 
evidently  err  in  matters  of  laith,  when  he  con- 
tended for  the  invalidity  of  baptism  by  heretics, 
though  otherwise  rightly  administered?  If  he 
explicitly  erred  in  one  point  of  faith,  may  he  not 
have  done  so  in  another,  which  was  only  implic- 
itly denied?  Undoubtedly,  Stephen  was  right, 
and  Cyprian,  as  every  one  must  grant,  was 
wrong,  and  this  circumstance  needs  must  consid- 
erably weaken  the  authority  derived  from  the 

*  St.  Jerome.     Dialog. 


302  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

* 

latter^s  resistance.  We  should  rather  see  in  this 
whole  case  a  splendid  confirmation  of  the  pre- 
rogatives and  rights  of  the  Holy  See,  and  a  beau- 
tiful instance  of  the  prudence,  moderation,  and 
firmness  with  which  they  are  exercised.  Besides, 
our  adversaries  appear  lo  forget  that  to  make 
sure  their  standing  against  the  grave  and  weighty 
mass  of  testimony,  which  we  have  adduced  in 
support  of  our  thesis,  they  must  oppose  testi- 
mony from  the  Holy  Fathers  at  least  as  certain 
and  as  clear  as  ours.  In  this  instance  it  is  surely 
not  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  historical  criti- 
cism points  out  doubts  so  manifold  and  serious, 
that  there  have  been  theologians,  who  have  not 
hesitated  to  deny  entirely  the  fact  of  Cyprian's 
resistance.  St.  Augustin,  living  but  a  short  time 
subsequent,  after  weighing  the  arguments  j)?'o  and 
contra,  could  not  arrive  at  a  final  and  definite 
decision.  We  are  content  with  saying  that  there 
is  good  ground  for  suspecting  that  Cyprian's 
writings  have  been  tampered  with  by  Donatist 
interpolators.* 

If  our  adversaries  are  learned  in  Patristic 
science,  they  must  be  aware  of  the  difference  in 
this  respect  between  our  own  times  and  those  in 
which  manuscripts  first  began  to  be  multiplied. 

*  Aug.  1.  2,  de  Bap.  S.  Hieronymus.  Dialog,  contra  Lueiferum. 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  303 

Now,  that  works  are  so  easily  and  so  widely  dis- 
seminated by  the  press  with  its  iron  hands  moved 
by  steam,  an  interpolation  in  a  recent  work  is 
almost  impossible,  and  is  easily  detected,  but  in 
those  days  of  slow  and  patient  scribes  it  was  not 
so  difficult,  and  especially  in  a  particular  prov- 
ince or  locality,  where  the  original  copies  were 
few  and  easily  altered. 

Every  theologian  can  recall  analogous  exam- 
ples, as  in  the  works  of  St.  Jerome,  and  more 
especially  in  those  of  Origen.  Nay,  men,  who 
are  versed  in  the  history  of  those  earlier  ages  can 
tell  you  that  the  heretical  Greeks  dared  even  to 
change  the  lists  of  CEcumenical  Synods,  and  that 
Photius  ventured  so  fur  as  to  send  to  the  Pro- 
vincial Churches  the  pretended  Acts  of  a  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople,  which  had  never  Ix-en  held. 

If  then,  our  adversaries  can  not  clear  these 
letters  of  Cyprian  of  suspicions,  so  weighty  and 
reasonable,  that  St.  Augustin  was  unable  there- 
by to  come  to  a  positive  decision,  with  what  face 
do  they  oppose  them  to  us  as  the  testimony  of 
this  Father,  and  an  argument,  omni  exceptione 
major,  counterbalancing  all  the  Patristic  authori- 
ties which  we  have  brought  forward  in  proof  of 
our  propositiou,  free  from  all  shadow  of  uncer- 
tainty, and  which  we  could  still  increase  ad  in- 
dejinitam. 


304  OBJECTIONS  EEFUTED. 

One' more  saying  of  St.  Augustin  we  here 
give,  to  show  how  little  Cyprian's  error  in  this 
matter,  if  admitted,  availed  against  the  truth 
in  the  mind  of  that  great  Doctor  and  Father 
of  the  Church.  In  answer  to  the  Donatists, 
he  says ;  "  Cyprian  received  the  palm  of  mar- 
tyrdom, that,  by  the  glory  of  his  blood,  he 
might  dispel  the  mist  occasioned  by  human 
weakness  and  passion.  Cyprian  sinned  and 
expiated  that  sin  with  the  blood  of  martyr- 
dom."* This  is  no  allusion  to  the  original 
error  of  Cyprian  condemned  by  St.  Stephen,  but 
to  the  resistance  which  he  gave  to  an  ordinance 
emanating  from  so  high  an  authority. 

We  may  now  conclude  our  answer  to  this  ob- 
jection with  another  passage  from  the  same  holy 
Doctor,  in  his  forty-eighth  letter.  ^^Oyprianus 
aut  non  sensit  omnino,  quod  eum  sensisse  recitatiSf 
aut  hoec  postea  correxit  in  regula  veritatisj  aut 
hunc  noevum  cobperuit  ubere  charitatis;  quoniam 
scriptum  est:  charitas  operit  muUitudinem p>eccatO' 
rumJ^  "  Either  Cyprian  did  not  hold  Avhat  you 
charge  him  with,  or  afterward  corrected  it  by 
the  rule  of  truth,  or  also  covered  the  wrong 
with  his  exuberant  charity,  according  as  it  is 
written,  '  Charity  covereth  a  multitude  of  sins.' " 

*St.  Aug.  de  Bapt.  Cont.  Don.  1.  1,  c.  8. 


OBJECTIONS  REFUTED.  305 

So  far,  then,  from  being  embarrassed  by  the 
sayings  and  actions  of  St.  Cyprian,  as  urged 
against  us  by  our  adversaries,  our  conviction, 
must  be  the  more  strengthened  on  finding  that 
objections  herakled  with  such  vaunting  of  vic- 
tory, on  close  examination,  have  proved  rather 
in  favor  than  against  our  thesis.  The  like  result 
will  be  found  to  attend  the  discussion  of  the  suc- 
ceeding objection. 

OBJECTION  VI. 

"  Tliis  Objection  is  derived  from  the  four 
articles  of  the  so-called  Gallican  Lib- 
erties, laid  down  by  the  French  Clergy  in 
1682,  and  is  founded  on  the  authority  of 
the  Churchy  as  dispersed  throughout  the 
world,  that  is,  not  acting  in  conjunc- 
tion with  its  Head,  It  is  as  follows  : 
If  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  in 
its  doctrinal  decisions  were  infallible,  the 
French  Clergy  could  not  have  denied  it, 
as  they  did  in  the  four  articles  of  tJie  so- 
named  Gallican  Liberties.  This  prim- 
lege  or  prerogative  is  not,  then,  univer- 
sally acknowledged  by  the  Church.^' 

Answer. — First,  Were  the  Bishops   assem- 
bled in  the  year   1682,  the  Church  of  France, 
the  Eglise  Gallicane,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
26 


306  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

term  ?  We  answer,  by  no  means.  They  were 
representatives,  if  you  will,  but  not  legitimate 
exponents  of  the  sense  of  the  Galilean  Church. 
Every  one  who  has  read  ever  so  little  of  French 
history,  knows  the  influence  which  Louis  XIV 
exercised  over  the  Bishops  of  that  Assembly. 
Louis  XIV,  so  wedded  to  absolutism  in  gov- 
ernment, who  said  ^^  Vetat  c'est  moi,''  was  equally 
anxious  to  gain  a  similar  control  over  the  Church 
in  France.  He  was  desirous  of  establishing  a 
National  Church,  to  be  governed  by  himself 
rather  than  by  the  Pope,  that  his  above-cited  sen- 
tence might  have  its  fellow,  "  VEglise  en  France, 
c^est  moi."  That  subtle  king  endeavored  to  secure 
the  appointing  of  Bishops,  whose  courtly  servility 
he  might  trust ;  and  believing  himself  assured  of 
their  connivance  or  co5peration  in  his  schismat- 
ical  tendencies,  he  caused  them  to  assemble  in 
1682,  and  proclaim  the  so-called  Liberties  of  the 
Galilean  Church.  But  these  Bishops  did  not 
faithfully  represent  the  sentiment  and  belief  of 
the  Church  of  France,  and  even  though  they 
had,  what  then  ?  Would  that  have  been  to  us  a 
law?  Then,  with  the  defection  of  England,  a 
great  part  of  Germany,  Sweden,  Prussia,  Russia, 
and  many  provinces  in  the  East,  we  would  have 
been  equally  bound  not  only  to  abandon  our 
faith  in  the  Infallibility  of  the  Holy  See,  but  in 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  307 

many  other  doctrines,  which,  with  us,  our  adver- 
saries claim  as  necessary  articles  of  the  faith  of 
Christ,  held  by  their  fathers  before  them,  and 
positively  defined. 

Second,  The  very  name  given  to  these  four 
propositions  stigmatizes  them  as  ambitious  and 
heterodox  assertions,  tending  to  a  national  schism, 
thereby  showing  them  in  their  true  nature.  The 
//6e?-/?€^of  theGallican  Church — what  a  self-con- 
demning name !  Were  the  framers  of  these  ar- 
ticles blind  to  the  fact,  that  their  very  title  con- 
demned tliem  as  deviations  from  the  otherwise 
universal  faith  and  sentiment  of  Cliristianity, 
concerning  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See.  Gallic 
can  only,  they  would  be,  and  therefore  not  Catho- 
lic; liberties,  and  therefore  anomalies  and  con- 
tradictions, as  regards  the  faith  and  obligations 
of  the  rest  of  the  Catholic  world.  Can  there  be 
" liberties^^  as  opposed  to  truth  ?  If  it  be  a  truth, 
and  of  faith,  is  it  not  equally  so  for  all  ?  What 
liberties  can  a  National  Church  claim  for  itself 
in  revealed  truth,  and  because  revealed,  is  im- 
posed on  all  mankind  ?  The  very  name  is 
more  than  insolent — it  is  absurd.  If  the  four 
articles  asserted  truths  appertaining  to  faith, 
were  they  not  the  property  of  all  the  faithful ; 
and  then  what  special  claim  did  the  Church  of 
France  possess  oyer  them? 


308  OBJECTIONS   EEFUTED. 

Third,  But  let  us  consider  these  declarations 
of  the  Bishops  assembled  in  1682.  AYe  shall  find 
them  in  flagrant  contradiction  to  the  teaching 
and  tradition  of  the  Church  of  France  up  to 
their  time,  and  we  shall  find  also  that  they  re- 
tracted what  they  had  so  rashly  advanced. 

We  have  said  that  they  are  contradictory  to 
the  traditional  teaching  of  the  Galilean  Church, 
from  the  first  introduction  of  Christianity  until 
the  holding  of  the  assembly  of  1682.  To  prove 
this,  we  have  but  to  recall  the  long  series  of 
quotations  given  in  our  pages,  from  the  Fathers, 
Councils,  Theologians,  Universities,  and  even 
the  Princes  living  in  France,  and  members  of 
its  Church,  commencing  from  the  Apostolic  age. 
These  testimonies  are  headed  by  Irenseus,  fol- 
lowed by  all  those  who  lived  after  him  through 
the  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  Were  not 
Hilary  of  Poictiers,  Priccius  of  Tours,  Cassian 
of  Marseilles,  Eucharius  of  Lyons,  Avitus  of 
Vienne,  of  the  five  first  centuries,  witnesses  to 
the  faith  of  the  Galilean  Church  of  that  time? 
Is  not  the  testimony  of  Coesarius  of  Aries,  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  Synod  of  Orleans,  in  the  sixth 
century,  of  Rhegino  of  Prum,  of  Lupus  of  Ferri- 
eres,  of  the  Synods  of  Soissons,  Douzzi  Pontigny, 
Troyes,  and  Limes,  a  luminous  witness  of  the 
faith  of  the  Galilean   Church  up  to  the  ninth 


OBJECTIOXS   REFUTED.  309 

cefntnry,  followed  by  the  forcible  testimony  of 
an  Ocldo  of  Clugny,   of  an  Abbo  of  Fleury,  a 
Fulbert  of  Charters,  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Synod 
of  Limoges  up  to  the  time  of  St.  Bernard,  whose 
grand  and  solemn  profession  of  faith  we  gave,  clos- 
ing with  him  the  tradition  of  the  patristic  period? 
On  this  path,  following  the  footsteps  of  their 
fathers,  the  Bishops  and  Theologians  continued 
to  walk,  and  gave  the  most  illustrious  proofs  of 
their  submission  to  the  Ajx)stolical  authority  of 
the  Holy  See  in  matters  of  faith.     So  thought 
and  spoke  the  Bishops  of  France  in  the  Synods 
Bezieres,  Valence  and  Albi.     At  times,  as  with 
William  of  Dijon,  they  even  gave  the  Pope  to 
undei-stand  that  he  might  make  a  more  vigorous 
and  energetic  use  of  his  power,  Rome  seeming 
sometimes  too  slow  to  act,  because  prudent  and 
merciful,  patient  and  forbearing. 

At  the  time  of  the  great  schism,  brought  about 
by  the  uncertainty  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  Papal 
elections,  French  Theologians  began,  it  is  true, 
to  speak  with  Gerson,  of  the  superiority  of  a 
General  Council  over  the  Pope,  but,  on  a  close 
examination,  it  becomes  evident  that  they  are 
speaking  of  those  Pretenders  to  the  Papacy,  and 
not  of  the  authority  of  an  undoubtedly  elected 
Pope,  Head  of  the  Church,  as  we  have  shown 
when  discussing  the  Council  of  Constance. 


310  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

Gerson  himself,  whose  authority  our  adversa- 
ries are  so  fond  of  urging,  positively  asserts 
that  before  the  Council  of  Constance,  any  theo- 
logian contending  for  the  superiority  of  a  Coun- 
cil over  the  Pope,  would  have  been  accounted  a 
heretic*  That,  after  the  Council,  he  himself  ad- 
hered in  this  to  the  primitive  traditions  of  the 
Church,  is  proven  by  the  arguments  he  used  in 
a  sermon  delivered  before  Pope  Alexander  Y, 
when  accounting  for  the  privilege  of  immunity 
from  error  in  matters  of  faith  existing  in  the 
Western  Church.  He  deduced  it  from  the  fact, 
that  Peter  erected  his  See  in  that  part  of  the 
Church,  for  whose  immutability  in  the  faith  He 
had  prayed  who  was  always  heard  because  of  His 
dignity.  And  even  though  Gerson  had  not  held 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Church  of  France,  our 
opponents  are  no  better  off  with  his  support  than 
when  they  pretended  to  shield  themselves  with 
that  of  St.  Cyprian.  How  insignificant  are  the 
authority  and  opinion  of  one  theologian  like 
Gerson,  when  compared  to  the  testimony  result- 
ing from  the  consent  of  so  many  others  of  far 
greater  reputation  in  the  Church,  who  preceded 
or  followed  the  Council  of  Constance,  as  Rijinald, 
Milante  Duval,  Claudius  Florins,  together  with 

*  Gerson,  De  Potest.  Ecclesiae,  Consid.  ii. 


OBjEcrnoNs  refitted.  311 

the  clearest  professions  of  the  faith,  which  ^\e 
have  quoted  from  the  Sorbonne  of  Paris. 

More  interesting  yet  are  the  solemn  declara- 
tions of  the  Clergy  of  France,  in  the  beginning 
of  that  very  century,  toward  the  close  of  which 
were  issued  the  schismatical  propositions  which 
astonished  the  world.  That  these  last  were  not 
grounded  on  the  previous  teaching  and  tradition 
of  the  French  Church,  is  evident  from  the  Syn- 
odical  letters  addressed  to  the  Clergy  in  the  year 
1626.  The  Bishops  teach  and  ordain,  "That  all 
should  venerate  the  Pope  as  the  visible  Head  of 
the  Universal  Church,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
upon  whom  Christ  founded  the  Church,  to  whom 
He  gave  the  Keys  of  Heaven,  with  that  infalU- 
hUity  of  faith,  which  we  see  miraculously  pre- 
served in  his  successors  even  to  our  own  day." 
"Super  hunc  Christus  fundavit  Ecclesiamj  illi 
claves  cceli  tradens,  cum  infallibilitate  fidei,  quam 
non  sine  miraculo  immotam  in  ejiLS  successoribus 
per  sever  are  usque  in  hodiemam  diem  cernimiisJ' 
In  the  year  1653,  the  Bishops  of  France  wrote 
the  congratulatory  letter  to  Innocent  X,  which 
we  have  previously  quoted,  and  in  which  they 
say,  that  a  Papal  decision  in  matters  of  faith  has 
a  diinne  authority,  to  which  eveiy  body  has  to 
submit,  not  only  exteriorly  but  interiorly,  with  a 
sincere  assent  before  God. 


312  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

More  pressing  and  comprehensive  yet,  is  an- 
other declaration  and  ordinance  of  the  French 
Episcopate,  delivered  in  the  same  century.  In 
a  circular  addressed  to  the  whole  Clergy,  in  1663, 
they  say :  "  The  submission  which  we  manifest 
for  the  Holy  Father  is,  so  to  say,  the  heirloom 
of  the  French  Episcopacy.  This  is  the  firm 
ground  on  which  our  honor  is  established;  this 
is  what  imparts  to  our  faith  invincibility,  and  to 
our  authority  infallibility."  ^'Quod  el  nostram 
Jldeni  invincibilem  reddit  et  nostram  audoritatem, 
infaUibilemJ^ 

If,  then,  the  Bishops  of  France  hold  a  different 
language  in  1682,  is  it  not  plain  that  they  thereby 
deviate  from  the  teaching  and  tradition  of  the 
Church  of  France?  And  does  not  the  fact  of  such 
a  sudden  change,  after  the  lapse  of  only  twenty 
years,  warrant  the  suspicion  that  it  was  induced 
by  some  exterior  influence?  And  so  it  was.  It 
was  the  influence  of  Louis  XIV,  that  led  them 
to  contradict  what  their  predecessors  had  uni- 
formly taught,  and  they  themselves,  but  a  few 
years  previous,  had  solemnly  declared.  They 
lived  at  that  time  in  a  feeble  subserviency  to 
the  desires  of  his  Majesty,  the  King ;  a  ser^dlity 
which  was  but  too  general  then  in  the  higher 
Clergy  of  France.  They  had  too  much  of  the 
Frenchman  and  the  courtier.    ^^Humanij  sen  po- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  313 

tiuSj  Gallicani  quid  passi  sunt^  Finally,  how- 
ever, they  returned  to  their  duty  by  retracting 
their  eror,  notwithstanding  that  they  had  a 
Bossuet  among  them. 

It  pleased  Divine  Providence  to  permit  that 
so  great  a  Theologian  should  try,  but  try  in 
vain,  to  undermine  the  solid  rock  of  argument 
on  which  the  truth  of  our  thesis  is  founded,  and 
be  compelled  to  retract.  We  read  in  his  life  that 
he  never  ceased,  until  the  hour  of  his  death,  to 
feel  remorse  for  his  weakness  and  his  servility 
to  human  respect. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  gi'atifying  to  have 
such  a  powerful  opponent,  as  Bossuet  confessedly 
is;  for,  if  all  his  efforts  proved  to  be  like  throw- 
ing pebbles  against  the  iron  gates  of  a  fortress, 
it  is  very  certain  that  no  other  antagonist  need 
anticipate  a  better  fate. 

And,  first,  we  may  say  that  Bossuet,  in  his 
defense  of  the  four  articles,  was  in  contradiction 
with  himself,  and  through  human  respect  was 
trying  to  satisfy  both  parties  by  distinctions  that 
proved  to  be  vain.  That  he  was  contradicting 
himself,  is  proved  from  his  previous  assertions 
on  other  occasions.  In  his  "  Meditations  on  St. 
Luke,^'  ch.  xxii  and  xxiii,  he  professed  his  belief 
in  the  infallibility  of  the  Apostolic  See  in  matters 
of  faith.  He  does  the  same  in  his  Catechism,  when 
27 


314  OBJECTIONS  EEFCJTED. 

treating  of  the  Festival  of  St.  Peter  and  Paul; 
in  the  two  first  Pastorals  which  he  addressed  to 
the  Clergy  of  his  Diocese ;  in  his  refutation  of 
the  Catechism  of  the  Huguenots;  and,  finally, 
in  his  ^'Expositio  Doctrince  Catholiece.''  And 
even,  as  he  was  addressing  the  Bishops  as- 
sembled in  1682,  his  conviction  again  transpires, 
for  he  reminded  them  that  the  Eoman  faith 
must  always  be  the  faith  of  the  Church ;  that 
St.  Paul,  returning  from  the  third  heavens,  went 
to  St.  Peter  to  give  an  account  of  his  faith,  setting 
in  this  an  example  to  all  future  generations;  and 
that,  in  fact,  the  entire  Cliurch,  extending  from 
the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  was  of  the 
same  belief. 

Bossuet  tried,  it  is  true,  to  restrain  the  Bishops, 
seduced  by  the  flatteries  of  Louis  XIV,  from  a 
schismatic  servility,  but  being  himself  too  much 
under  the  influence  of  human  respect,  he  sQm- 
moned  all  his  powers  and  took  refuge  in  vain 
distinctions  when  writing  his  "Defense  of  the 
Declarations  of  the  Bishops." 

Even  in  that  "  Defense'^  his  intimate  and  pre- 
viously expressed  convictions  are  still  apparent. 
He  rejects  with  horror  the  least  suspicion  that 
by  these  four  articles  the  Clergy  of  France  de- 
tracted from  the  strength  and  dignity  of  the  Head 
of  the  Church.     ^^Neque  vero  velimus,  quod  Ca- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  315 

tholici  omneSy  Summique  Pontifices  perhorrescant, 
Eccksicej  tanti  corporis ^  imhecille  esse  caput J^ 
He  states  the  reason  of  tliis  horror  to  be,  "  That 
if  that  Chair  should  fall  into  error,  the  whole 
Church  would  be  dissolved/^  "  Quce  cathedra  si 
coneidere  posset,  fieref que  cathedra  non  verUatis  sed 
erroriSy  Ecclesia  ipsa  Catholica  esset  dissohUaJ^ 

Speaking  of  the  formula  of  Adrian  II,  and 
of  its  subscription  as  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  he 
says:  "By  this  subscription  all  the  Churches 
professed  their  belief  in  the  immutability  of  the 
Apostolic  See  in  matters  of  faith,  according  to 
the  promise  of  Christ.''  To  reconcile  such  asser- 
tions with  the  tenor  of  the  four  articles  he  had 
recourse  to  subtle  distinctions  and  explanations. 

We  must  consider,  he  tells  us,  all  the  Popes 
collectively,  not  individually,  as  constituting  one 
with  Peter ;  it  is  this  collective  personality 
which  can  not  err,  and  whose  faith  never  fails. 
In  other  words,  faith  may  waver  and  even  fail 
in  any  one  Pontiff,  but  the  error  can  not  take 
root  in  the  Apostolic  See.  ^^ Accipiendi  sunt  Bo- 
mani  Pontifices  tanquam  una  persona  Petri,  in 
qua  nunquam  fides  defidat,  atque  ut  in  aliquibus 
vacillet  aut  concidat,  non  tamen  deficit  in  totitmj^ 
Is  it  not  strange  that  so  great  a  mind  should  fall 
into  so  poor  a  sophism  ? 

No  doubt  all  the  Roman  Pontiffs  represent 


316  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

Peter,  whose  authority  they  inherit ;  but  for  that 
very  reason  none  of  them  can  err,  because,  as  all 
are  one  and  the  same  person — Peter — the  failure 
of  one  would  affect  that  person — Peter.  Or,  in 
other  words,  because  the  individual  who  fails  be- 
longs to  this  mystical  personage,  therefore  in  him 
Peter  fails. 

Moreover,  Bossuet  is  well  aware  that  by  the 
formula  of  Adrian  II,  which  he  holds  himself 
bound  to  defend,  whosoever  subscribes  it  is 
obliged  to  obey  the  decisions  of  the  Pope  actually 
occupying  the  Apostolic  See,  as  ^'  a  rule  of  faith  ;^' 
neither  could  he  be  ignorant  that  the  Fathers  of  the 
CEcumenical  Councils  recognized  in  every  individ- 
ual Pope,  the  rock  upon  which  the  Church  is  built, 
the  divinely  commissioned  teacher  of  the  faith, 
the  Vicar  of  Christ  in  whom  Peter  always  lives. 

In  trying  to  confirm  this  distinction,  the  Bishop 
of  Meaux  makes  use  of  an  illustration,  which 
serves  but  to  exhibit  its  shallowness.  He  says, 
that  Peter  himself  denied  Christ  in  the  court- 
yard of  the  High  Priest,  and  in  the  same  way 
every  individual  Pope  may  be  supposed  to  err. 
Who  will  not  be  surprised  at  such  a  reason,  from 
such  a  man !  Surely  he  does  not  mean  that  Pe- 
ter was  teaching,  or  giving  a  decision  or  definition 
of  faith  to  the  whole  Church,  and  yet  he  knew 
that  it  is  only  in  this  sense  that  we  proclaim 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  317 

Peter  and  his  successors  infallible.  He  sinned  as 
a  man,  and  so,  too,  is  every  one  of  his  successors 
subject  to  sin  ;  neither  he  nor  they  were  infallible 
in  their  manner  of  living,  but  only  in  matters  of 
faith,  when  instructing  the  whole  Church. 

Moreover,  had  Bossuet  forgotten  that  when 
Peter  denied  Christ,  he  had  not  yet  become  Head 
of  the  Church,  Yicar  of  Clirist.  The  promises 
of  Christ  were  for  the  future,  when  "  he  should 
be  once  confirmed, '^  and  enter  on  his  office  as 
Visible  Head  of  the  Church.  Christ  said: 
^^JEdificnho,  .  .  .  daho,  ,  ,  ,  et  tu  aliquando."  "  I 
shall  build,  ...  I  shall  give,  .  .  .  and  thou  be- 
ing once  confirmed."  He  certainly  can  not  have 
meant  that  after  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord,  and 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Peter  could  have 
erred  in  matters  of  faith ;  such  a  supposition  he 
could  not  have  made,  and  yet  such  a  supposition 
is  needed  to  give  any  strength  to  his  illustration. 
The  argument  bears  witness  to  the  desperate  na- 
ture of  the  position  which  Bossuet  had  under- 
taken to  defend. 

This  distinction  between  the  individual  and  col- 
lective personality  of  Peter,  logically  involves  the 
most  striking  inconsequences.  For,  on  the  sup- 
position that  one  individual  Universal  Teacher 
can  err,  we  may  rightly  infer  that  every  one 
could  do  so,  and  then  where  is  the  collectively 


318  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

infallible  person?  If  not  all,  then  wliicli  is  to 
be  the  infallible  one,  redeeming  the  others ;  is  it 
to  be  the  third,  fifth,  or  tenth?  And  how  many 
infallible  Pontiffs  are  needed  to  prevent  the  col- 
lective personality  from  being  affected  by  the  fal- 
libility of  the  individuals  ? 

Feeling  how  untenable  this  position  was.  Bos- 
suet  in  his  "  Defense ''  is  forced  to  admit  the  In- 
fallibility of  the  Head  of  the  Church,  when  teach- 
ing, or  defining  an  Article  of  Faith  for  the  whole 
Church,  or,  as  the  theologians  say,  when  speaking 
"  ex  cathedra,'^  but,,  for  this  is  our  thesis,  he  adds 
that  we  can  not  know  that  he  so  speaks,  until  his 
decision  has  received  the  assent  of  the  Church, 
as  dispersed  throughout  the  world,  or  united  in 
CEcumenical  Council. 

This  explanation  has  been  already  disproved 
by  what  we  have  said,  when  urging  that  neither 
the  decision  of  an  CEcumenical  Council  nor  the 
assent  of  the  Ecdesia  dispersa  was  the  tribunal 
constituted  by  Christ  in  matters  of  faith.  The 
reasons  which  we  then  gave  are  equally  applica- 
ble to  this  point. 

Bossuet  strives  to  justify  his  assertion  by  anal- 
ogy. He  says  that  a  General  Council,  notwith- 
standing its  infallibility,  has  to  wait  for  its  ac- 
knowledgment by  the  Ecdesia  dispersa,  before  it 
is  recognized  as  a  General  Council;  and  so,  too, 


OBJECTIOXS   REFUTEl).  319 

the  sentence  of  a  Pope,  speaking  ex  cathedra,  may 
be  infallible,  but  its  reception  by  the  whole 
Church  is  required  before  we  can  know  that  he 
speaks  ex  cathedra. 

In  this  justification,  instead  of  bettering  his 
argument,  he  abandons  it,  since  he  admits  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  Poi)e's  decision,  provided  it  be 
certain  that  he  speaks  ex  cathedra.     Now,  how- 
ever it  may  be  with  a  General  Council  in  resj^ect 
to  historical  reality,  it  is  certain  that  the  simple 
fact   of  the    Pope's    speaking   ex.   cathedra  can 
be  certainly  ascertained  Gy  his  teaching,  or  pro- 
nouncing a  definition  in  matters  of  faith  to  be 
believed  by  all.     This  fiict  can  l>e  made  evident 
and    as   historically  certain    as    that    the    light 
comes  from  the  sun,  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
sentence  and  the  declarations  of  the  Holy  Fa- 
ther.    We  will  give  an  instance.     When  Pius 
IX   pronounced   u^n   the  dogma  of  the   Im- 
maculate Conception,  at  that  very  moment  every 
Catholic  there  present  was  obHged  to  believe  it, 
without  needing  or  even  being  permitted  to  ask 
what  any  Bishop  present  or  absent  believed,  and, 
still  less,  without  consulting  or  awaiting  the  as- 
sent of  the  Eccle^ia  dispersa.     It  was  a  decision 
addressed  to  the  whole  Church,  and,  as  a  fact, 
was  spread  far  and  wide  by  steam  and  electricity, 
that  Pius  IX  had  so  spoken,  and  ex  cathedra 


320  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

could  not  be  the  subject  of  a  doubt  to  any  rea- 
sonable man.  Now,  in  regard  to  General  Coun- 
cils— as,  for  instance,  those  of  the  East — all  re- 
mained in  suspense  until  it  was  ascertained  that 
they  had  been  confirmed  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church;  when  this  was  made  known,  nothing 
was  more  needed  to  make  their  decrees  and  de- 
cisions binding.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  accord- 
ing to  Bossuet^s  own  admission,  the  same  holds 
good  as  to  the  Papal  definition,  with  the  diifer- 
ence  that  the  latter,  if  its  genuineness  be  certain, 
carries  along  with  it  the  obligation  of  sub- 
mission. 

We  can  not  but  repeat  that  it  is  pitiful  to  see 
how  far  human  motives,  working  on  the  heart, 
can  influence  the  mind  even  of  such  a  man  as 
we  know  Bossuet  to  have  been. 

Fenelon  was  of  another  stamp,  and  though  he 
had  been  the  preceptor  of  two  Princes,  belonging 
to  the  family  of  Louis  XIV,  he  refused  his  assent 
to  the  four  articles,  which  he  contemptuously 
characterized,  "  Liberties  against  the  Pope  and 
servility  to  the  King."  In  a  Pastoral  to  his  Clergy 
subsequent  to  their  promulgation,  he  says :  "  We 
must  attend  to  the  promises  of  Christ  as  daily 
proved  by  facts,  for  Peter  continues  to  speak  from 
his  chair,  and  whosoever  joins  in  faith  with  Rome 
is  preserved  from  danger.     This  is  proved  by  the 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  321 

formula  of  faith  sent  by  Pope  Hormisdas  to  the 
Eighth  Council,  in  which  every  Bishop  was  obhged 
forever  to  follow  in  matters  of  faith  the  decisions 
sent  forth  by  the  Apostolic  See.  This  was  the 
price  by  which  they  gained  admission  among 
Catholics."  ^^  Hoc  pretio  inter  Catholicos  recen- 
slti." 

We  may  hereby  understand  Avhat  Fenelon 
meant  when  he  gave  expression  to  his  feelings  in 
these  beautiful  words :  "  0  Eglise  Romuine,  0 
cite  sainte,  0  chere  et  commune  patrie  de  tons  lea 
Chretiens  !  II  n^y  a  en  Jesus  Christ,  ni  Qrec,  ni 
Scythe,  ni  Barhare,  ni  Juif;  tous  sont  un  seal 
peuple  dans  votre  sein;  tous  sont  concitoyens  de 
Rome,  et  tout  Catholiqne  est  Romain.^'  "O 
Church  of  Rome !  O  holy  city !  O  dear  and  com- 
mon country  of  Christians !  In  Jesus  Christ 
there  is  neither  Greek,  Scythian,  barbarian,  nor 
Jew;  all  together  form  but  one  people  in  thy 
bosom ;  all  are  fellow-citizens  of  Rome,  and 
every  Catholic  is  a  Roman." 

How  deeply  these  convictions  were  grounded, 
was  proved  to  his  personal  honor  and  glory  in  the 
prompt  and  entire  submission  which  he  paid  to  the 
decision  of  Rome  against  himself.  He  had  writ- 
ten a  book  entitled,  "  Maximes  des  Saints.^^  In 
this  book  there  were  certain  errors  concerning  the 
ascetical  life,  which  Bossuet  denounced  to  Rome. 


322  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

The  errors  were  condemned,  and  Fenelon  gave  a 
heroic  example  of  humility,  faith  and  submission, 
which  shall  forever  redound  to  his  greater  fame 
and  veneration.  He,  an  Archbishop,  and  once 
preceptor  at  the  Court,  ascended  the  pulpit,  read 
aloud  the  condemnation  of  the  errors  contained 
in  his  book,  and  forbade  it  to  be  read  any  longer  ^ 
by  the  members  of  his  flock,  adding  that  he 
availed  himself  of  that  occasion  for  paying  that 
obedience  to  the  Holy  See  which  was  its  due, 
and  which  he  wished  to  pay  even  to  his  last 
sigh:  " Dont  nous  vouloiis  vous  donner  un  exem- 
plejusqu  ^au  dernier  soupir  de  la  vie.''  A  distin- 
guished French  author  exclaims,  in  reference  to 
this  act  of  Fenelon :  "  Heraux  les  hommes,  si  les 
h^resiarques  sttaient  soumis  avec  autant  de  moder- 
ation, que  le  grand  ev^que  de  Camhrai,  qui  n'avait 
nulle  envie,  d'etre  heretiqueJ^  "■  How  happy  for 
mankind  if  the  heresiarchs  had  always  submitted 
with  the  moderation  displayed  by  the  great 
Bishop  of  Cambrai,  who,  indeed,  had  no  inclina- 
tion to  be  a  heretic/' 

Finally,  our  adversaries,  if  they  be  theologians, 
must  be  aware  that  the  Bishops  who  devised 
these  ''Galilean  liberties''  revoked  them,  sued  for 
pardon,  and  sent  a  letter  of  recantation  to  Inno- 
cent XI.  In  that  letter  they  say:  '^ Prostrate 
at  thy  feet,  we  confess  and  declare  that,  from  our 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  323 

hearts,  and  more  than  we  can  express,  we  deplore 
what  we  did  in  that  assembly."  "  VeJiemenfer 
quidemy  et  supra  orane  id  quod  did  potM,  ex  am- 
ino dolere  de  rebus  gestis  in  canciliis  prcrdidis.^' 
And,  therefore,  all  that  was  said  in  regard  to  the 
Papal  authority,  we  will  and  declare  should  be 
considered  as  not  said.  "Fro  non  deer  do  habe- 
musj  et  habaiduni  dcdararnus.'^  De  Pradt,  in 
his  book,  ^'Quatre  Concordats,"  Paris,  1826,  IV, 
136,  gives  us  the  words  of  Bossuet,  when  he  heard 
of  the  condemnation  of  the  four  articles  at  Rome : 
"  Abeat  ergo  quocumque  voluerit  ista  declaratio." 
"  May  the  declai-ations  then  be  gone  where  they 
will." 

But  apart  from  these  retractations,  the  articles 
were  defeated  on  their  own  ground,  and  with 
their  own  weapons.  They  claimed  for  the  con- 
sent of  the  Church  *' dispersed"  an  undue  au- 
thority as  a  tribunal  in  matters  of  faith,  and  that 
very  " Ecdesia  dispersa'^  no  sooner  heard  of  the 
four  articles,  than  it  lifted  up  its  voice  and  de- 
nounced them,  by  the  voices  of  the  Episcopacy 
of  Spain,  Belgium,  and  Italy.  In  the  year  1684, 
the  Primate  of  Hungary  also  assembled  a  Na- 
tional Synod,  in  which  the  four  articles  were 
unanimously  condemned  as  absurd,  detestable, 
and  productive  of  schism.  "  Daninanius  has — 
propositiones  absurdas,  detestabiles  et  ad  schisma 


324  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

tendentes.^'  Even  Voltaire  observes  that  the  idea 
of  a  National  Churchy  originating  in  an  exag- 
gerated love  of  nationality,  came  near  being  then 
realized,  and  what  else  would  it  have  been,  but 
a  Western  schism?  But  the  Catholic  feeling  of 
France,  suppressed  for  a  time,  soon  awakened, 
and  has  remained  steadfast  to  the  Apostolic  See. 
We  know  very  well  that  Gallicanism,  fostered 
by  Jansenism,  has  never  been  entirely  extin- 
guished in  France,  and  from  time  to  time  gives 
faint  sparks  of  life,  counting  even  yet  its  adher- 
ents, but  then,  too,  we  find  that  the  old  Eastern 
heresies,  Monothelism,  Eutychianism,  and  Nes- 
torianism,  though  condemned  and  crushed  by  the 
Catholic  faith,  have  left  some  faint  and  lingering 
traces.  We  should  not  wonder  at  the  same  fact 
in  regard  to  the  four  articles,  more  noticeable 
than  now,  up  to  the  time  of  De  Maistre  and  La- 
mennais.  Since  that  period,  however,  Gallican- 
ism has  become  well-nigh  extinct,  disappearing 
with  the  few  adherents  of  what  is  styled  "  la  petite 
EgliseJ^  The  great  body  of  the  French  Episco- 
pacy and  Clergy,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  is 
eminently  Roman.  Thus,  in  1819,  eighty  Bish- 
ops signed  an  address  to  Pius  VII,  in  which 
they  profess  it  impossible  that  he  should  not  be 
the  protector  of  the  true  faith,  Avho  occupies  the 
place  of  Christ  on  earth,  as   the  first  leader, 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  325 

teacher,  and  doctor  of  the  faithful.  "  Christi 
Jidem  non  posse  non  tueriy  qui  Christi  vices  in  ter- 
ris  suppletj  primus  duXj  magister,  et  doctor  Jideli- 
um."  More  positive  and  peremptory  is  the 
declaration  of  the  French  clergy  to  the  king, 
in  1826,  in  which  their  faith  is  thus  expressed : 
"With  the  whole  Catholic  Church  we  condemn 
those  who,  under  the  pretext  of  preserving  the 
liberties  of  the  Gallican  Church,  lessen  the  obe- 
dience due  by  all  Christians  to  the  throne  estab- 
lished by  Jesus  Christ,  the  Primacy  of  Peter  and 
of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  liis  successors,  and  who 
injure,  in  the  eyes  of  all  nations,  the  venerable 
majesty  of  the  Apostolic  See,  where  the  faith  is 
taught,  and  the  unity  of  the  Church  preserved.'^ 
"  Ubi  fides  docetur,  et  Ecdesice  unitas  conservaiur, 
detrahere  non  verenturJ^  * 


OBJECTION  \^. 

"TTe  must  distinguish  between  the  Apostoli- 
cal See  and  those j  who  occupy  it.  The 
See  is  Infallible^  not  the  Pope. 

Answer. — This  distinction  is  neither  reason- 
able in  itself  considered,  nor  sanctioned  by  the 

*See  Ziegler  Proleg.  de  Eccle.,  p.  291,  and  De  Maistre,  on 
tho  Liberties  of  the  Gallic  Church. 


326  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

Holy  Fathers,  who  have  expressly  taught  the 
contrary. 

Reason  does  not  recognize  it,  since  it  were 
absurd  to  imagine  any  other  meaning  for  the 
Apostolical  See  than  the  Apostolic  power  and 
authority  of  St.  Peter  transmitted  to  his  suc- 
cessors. But  how  can  an  Apostolic  See,  apart 
from  the  person  who  legally  occupies  it,  be  said 
to  succeed  St.  Peter?  The  expression  is  mean- 
ingless, unless  we  understand  thereby  the  power 
and  authority  of  St.  Peter  invested  in  the  per- 
son of  his  successor,  the  Primate  and  Head  of 
the  Church.  It  is,  apart  from  him,  a  non-ens, 
that  can  do  nothing,  and  define  nothing.  Mel- 
cliior  Canus  is  certainly  right  in  saying  "reason 
despises  and  rejects  this  distinction.^^  "Dis- 
tinctionem  hanc  ratio  aspernitur — rejicitJ^^ 

The  distinction  was  unknown  to  the  Holy 
Fathers,  who,  on  the  contrary,  identified  the  in- 
dividual, with  the  authority  of  the  See  he  occu- 
pied. Thus  St.  Jerome  exclaims  :  "  I  am  in 
communion  with  thee,  that  is,  the  See  of  Peter.'' 
^'JEgo  Beatitudini  tuce,  id  est,  Cathedrce  Petri,  com- 
munione  consentior.'^  St.  Augustin  expresses  him- 
self in  the  same  manner,  using  the  expressions  as 
being  identical  ^vith  each  other,  when  referring 

»Meleh.  Canus  de  loo.  Theolog.  Ep.  6,  c.  8. 


OBJECTIONS  REFUTED.  327 

to  the  condemnation  of  Pelagianism  at  Rome. 
"Now/'  he  says,  '^that  Innocent  condemned  it, 
and  now  that  the  Apostolic  See  condemned  it." 
Our  readers  will  remember  how  the  General 
Councils,  and  generally  all  the  authorities  of  ec- 
clesiastical antiquity,  in  all  ages  of  Christiauity, 
when  addressing  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  adopted 
the  same  expressions  as  were  used  by  the  Fathers 
of  the  Sixth  General  Council :  ''  Peter  lives  in 
his  See,  and  through  Agatho,  Peter  has  spoken." 
The  very  words  by  which  Josus  declared  Peter 
Head  of  the  Church,  identify  the  authority  of 
his  office  with  that  of  his  person,  then  when  he  ad- 
dressed to  him  the  Chaldaic  word :  ''Tu  es  Petra'' 
— not  Petrus.  Bossuet,  in  this  point,  certainly  a 
disinterested  authority,  says :  **  We  do  not  pre- 
tend that  this  See  can  exercise  any  act  of  power 
or  jurisdiction,  except  through  its  occupant,  and 
neither  can  we  distinguish  between  the  faith  of 
the  Roman  Church  and  that  of  its  Pontiff,  be- 
cause the  Romans  learned  their  faith  first  from 
Peter,  and  then  from  the  successors  of  Peter." 
^^Neque  propterea  dicimiis  ipsam  sedem  aliquid 
exercere  posse  potestatis  aut  Jurisdicfionis  alitcr, 
quam  per  ipsum  iwccsidentem ;  neque  distinguimus 
a  Romanorum  Pontificum  fide,  Romance  Ecdesice 
fidem,  quam  scilicet  moraliter  a  Petro  prirno,  atque 
Petri  successoribus  Romatii  didiceru7it."     By  the 


328  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

latter  part  of  this  assertion,  Bossuet  indicates 
another  distinction  sometimes  advanced. 


OBJECTION  Vin. 

*'  We  must  distinguish  between  the  faith  of  the 
Roman  Churchy  that  is,  tlie  Clergy  of 
Rome  and  that  of  the  Pope  individ%mlly; 
so  that  the  Roman  Church  can  never  err, 
hut  the  Pope  canJ' 

Answer. — This  distinction,  equally  with  the 
preceding,  is  vain  and  arbitrary,  repugnant  alike 
to  Scripture  and  Tradition.  To  Scripture,  be- 
cause Christ  addressed  Peter,  and  not  the  assem- 
bled Clergy  of  Rome,  when  He  promised  and 
confirmed  to  him  the  privileges  which  constituted 
him  the  irremovable  foundation-stone  of  the 
Church,  and  its  infallible  teacher.  This  author- 
ity, conferred  by  Christ,  is  transferred  to  his 
successor;  but  that  succeessor  is  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  not  the  synodical  assembly  of  the 
Roman  clergy. 

Tradition  ignores  and  rejects  this  distinction, 
deducing  the  privileges  of  the  Roman  Church 
from  the  one  fact  that  its  Pontiff  is  the  successor 
of  St.  Peter.  Apart  from  this  the  Roman  Church 
and  clergy  would  be  on  the  same  footing  with 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  329 

those  of  Constantinople  and  other  places.     The 
Holy  Fathers  and  the  General  Councils  have 
yielded  submission  to  the  Roman  Church,  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  they   acknowledged   its 
Pontiff  as  the  rightful  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
who  still  lives  and  speaks  in  his  See,  by  the  au- 
thority transmitted   through    the  institution  of 
Christ  to  his  successors,  and  which  was  to  endure 
until  the  consummation  of  the  world.    St.  Jerome 
says :  "  I  agree  with  the  successor  of  Peter,  who 
occupies  the  chair  of  Peter,  on  which  I  know 
the  Church   to  be  founded."     "  Cum  successore 
Petri  loquor,  qui    oaihedmm  Petri  tenet,  supra 
quam  Ecdesiam  cedijicatam  sclo.'^     ''And,  there- 
fore," adds  he,  "  whosoever  gathers  not  with  thee, 
dissipates;   whoso  is  not  with  thee,  belongs  to 
Antichrist."    ^'  Ideo,  quicumque  tecum  non  coUigit, 
spargit,  qui  tecum  non  est,  Antichristi  est.''    And 
Peter  Chrysologus,    when   urging   Eutyches  to 
submit,  does  not  give  for  reason  the  faith  of  the 
Roman  Church  or  of  its  Clergy,  but  simply  says : 
"  Peter,  who  lives  in  his  own  See,  communicates 
the   true  faith   to   those  who  seek   it  of  him." 
^'Quia  Petrus  in  propria   sede  viveus,  ptrcestat 
qucerentibus  fidei  veritatemj'    The  Councils  have 
spoken  to  the  same  effect.     The  Fathers  of  the 
Third  Council  of  Constantinople  do  not  rejoice 
because  their  faith  has  been  approved  by  the 
28 


330  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

Church  or  Clergy  of  Rome,  but  because  the 
"  Chief  Prince  of  the  Apostles  is  fighting  with 
us;  because  we  have  for  Patron  his  successor. 
Paper  and  ink  it  appeared,  but  through  Agatho, 
Peter  has  spoken.'^  ^^Summus  nobiscum  certat 
Apostolorum  PrincepSj  eo  quod  ipsim  successorem 
habuimus  fautorem.  Charta  et  atr amentum  vide- 
batur,  et  per  Agathonem  Petrus  loquebatur." 

In  the  same  sense  speak  the  Fathers  of  the 
Fourth  and  Eighth  General  Councils.  They  all 
allege,  as  the  reason  of  their  submission,  the 
promise  of  Christ,  which  can  never  be  frustrated : 
"  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  that  rock  I  shall  build 
my  Church." 

What  other  reason  can  they  allege  who  hold 
the  Roman  Church,  as  constituted  by  its  assem- 
bled Clergy  alone,  exempt  from  every  possibility 
of  error?  Is  it  that  in  Rome  there  are  always 
so  many  Prelates  and  highly-instructed  theolo- 
gians, with  such  facilities  of  communication  with 
the  other  Churches,  that  the  faith  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church  may  justly  be  deemed  concentered 
and  concentrated  in  the  Sy nodical  ly-assembled 
Clergy  of  Rome  ? 

But  if  this  reason  were  sufficient,  it  would  also 
suffice,  and  even  more,  to  make  the  decision  of  a 
General  Council  infallible  without  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  Pope  •  for  there  the  faith  of  the  Uni- 


OBJECrriONS   REFITTED.  331 

versal  Church  is  even  more  concentrated,  and 
there  is  a  much  larger  assembly  of  illustrious 
theologians ;  and  yet  the  history  and  decrees  of 
these  same  Councils  (in  our  opponents'  theorj^, 
infallible)  tell  us  that,  without  the  confirmation 
of  the  Pontiff,  their  decisions  are  not  binding  on 
any  Christian  conscience  or  intellect. 

Again,  as  the  Church  of  Rome  never  teaches 
by  definitions  sent  to  the  whole  Church,  except 
tlirough  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  can  not  be,  and 
never  was  consulted  except  by  addressing  him,  it 
would  follow  that  a  belief  in  the  faith  of  the  Ro- 
man Church,  in  the  sense  of  this  distinction,  as 
being  the  faith  of  the  Universal  Church,  would 
remain  a  mere  presumption,  more  or  less  prob- 
able, but  would  not,  and  could  not,  be  a  rule  of 
faith,  a  Supreme  Tribunal.  There  is  no  one  to 
be  addressed,  to  be  consulted,  to  decide,  unless  it 
be  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

Finally,  it  is  these  very  Clergy  of  Rome  that 
specially  defends  our  thesis,  and  which  derives 
all  their  distinction  in  the  Church  from  the  pres- 
ence and  dignity  of  its  Primate,  the  Head  of  the 
Church.  If  there  be  any  disputed  truth  more 
strenuously  held  and  defended  than  another  by 
the  Clergy  of  Rome,  it  is  this  very  thesis  con- 
cerning the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  which  we  are  now  sustaining ;  and,  con- 


3S2  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

sequently,  the  favorers  of  this  last  objection 
would  be  obliged,  if  it  have  any  weight  at  all, 
to  accept  our  thesis. 

OBJECTION  IX. 

''  But  Popes  have  actually  erred  in  matters  of 
faithy  and,  by  the  fact  itself  have  there- 
fore proved  themselves  fallible. 

Answer. — The  consequence  would  be  logic- 
ally correct  were  the  premises  true,  but  we  deny 
the  supposition.  No  Pope  has  erred  in  matters 
of  faith. 

Bossuet  himself  concedes  that,  of  all  the  pre- 
tended cases  brought  forward  to  prove  the  sup- 
posed fact,  there  are  only  two  that  merit  an 
answer,  the  others  being  generally  abandoned 
even  by  our  adversaries.  These  two  cases,  to 
which  our  adversaries  constantly  appeal  when 
there  is  question  of  the  fallibility  of  the  Pope, 
are  those  of  Liberius  and  Honorius.  The  for- 
mer is  charged  with  Arianism,  the  latter  with 
Monothelism.  We  shall  presently  see  how  little 
reason  there  is  in  either  charge. 

Before  answering  the  accusation,  we  must  once 
more  remind  our  opponents  that,  in  order  to  over- 
turn our  thesis,  they  must  prove  not  merely  that 
Liberius  or  Honorius  has  spoken  or  written  what 


OBjEcrrioxs  refuted.  333 

is  contrary  to  faith,  or  denied  it,  but  that  he  did 
so  as  Pope,  teaching  in  matters  of  faith  or  morals, 
and  thereby  binding  the  Universal  Church.  If 
they  can  not  prove  this,  they  prove  nothing,  for 
the  fallibility  would  then  be  only  personal  and 
private,  and  would  no  more  affect  the  infallibility 
of  the  Po})e  as  Universal  Teacher,  than  the  de- 
nial of  Peter  in  the  Court  of  the  High  Priest 
injured  his  infallibility  as  Prince  of  the  Apostles. 
They  must,  then,  first  produce  good,  historical 
evidence  of  the  fact ;  secondly,  they  must  prove 
that  it  w^as  a  definition  or  teaching  contrary  to 
truth  in  matters  of  faith ;  and,  thirdly,  that  the 
Pope  intended,  by  his  teaching,  to  bind  the 
Universal  Church  to  believe  it.  This,  so  long 
as  history  is  history,  they  never  will  succeed  in 
doing.  It  is  an  impossibility,  as  we  shall  dem- 
onstrate to  our  readers. 

They  tell  us  that  Liberius  taught  Arianism. 
We  answer  that  they  can  never  produce  historical 
evidence  of  such  a  fact ;  and,  even  though  they 
could,  they  would  not  be  able  to  prove  that  he 
did  so,  defining  it  as  a  matter  of  faith  to  the 
Universal  Church. 

As  to  the  fact  itself,  sound  historical  criticism 
tends  directly  to  the  contrary  conclusion,  namely, 
that  Liberius  did  not  do  what  they  suppose  him 
to  have  done.    The  historical  documents  to  which 


334  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

they  appeal  are,  some  of  them,  of  very  doubtful 
authority,  whilst  the  others  are  evidently  false  or 
corrupted.  Their  first  authority  is  that  of  the 
so-called  "  Fragments,'^  ascribed  to  Hilarius, 
which  critics  generally  acknowledge  not  to  have 
been  written  by  him,  but  by  some  unknown  au- 
thor. They  also  appeal  to  two  letters  of  Athan- 
asius,  which  are  spurious. 

Two  passages  are  quoted  from  the  works  of 
St.  Jerome — the  one  from  his  book,  "De 
Sci^ptoribas  Ecclesiasticis/'  the  other  from  his 
"  Chronicon.'^  Now,  St.  Jerome  has  himself 
complained  of  the  interpolations  made  in  his 
works,  a  thing,  as  we  have  mentioned,  very  easily 
done  in  the  days  of  manuscripts;  and  critics 
prove  that  this  actually  occurred  with  regard  to 
these  two  works. 

They  also  bring  forward  four  letters  ascribed 
to  Liberius  himself,  which  are  mere  fabrications 
by  the  Lucifirians  and  Arians.  Finally,  they 
giv^  a  poorly-manufactured  account,  to  the 
effect  that,  after  his  pretended  fall,  Liberius,  on 
returning  to  Rome,  was  contemptuously  driven 
out  by  the  Roman  people.  This  fiction  is  bor- 
rowed from  a  spurious  work  of  Eusebius  the 
Priest. 

It  would  be  too  long  and  tedious  to  discuss 
fully  the  defectiveness  of  these  pretended  authori- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  335 

ties,  and  we  are  obliged,  therefore,  to  refer  those 
of  our  readers,  who  would  desire  to  review  the 
whole  controversy  on  this  point,  to  such  celebra- 
ted critics  as  the  famous  Bollandist,  Hettingus,"^ 
Cardinal  Orsi,  f  to  Antonio  Zaccharia,^:  in  his 
learned  dissertation  on  the  "  Fall  of  Liberius,'' 
and  Tilleraont/^  § 

Against  all  their  corrupted  historical  sources 
are  arrayed  most  trustworthy  historical  docu- 
ments, clearly  showing  that  Liberius  not  only 
never  betrayed  the  truth,  but  that  he  was  its 
consistent,  energetic  champion. 

Nobody  pretends  to  call  in  question  the  fact, 
that  it  was  he  who  withstood  the  one  thousand 
Bishops,  assembled  at  Rimini,  who  had  suffered 
themselves  to  be  entrapped  by  the  Arian  into 
subscribing  an  heretical  formula,  of  which  St. 
Jerome  exclaims :  **  The  Christian  world  was 
astonished  to  find  itself  become  Arian."  This 
was  the  most  numerous  Council  ever  celebrated 
in  the  first  thousand  years  of  the  existence  of  the 
Church.  Opposed  to  it,  great  as  it  was  in  num- 
ber and  Episcopal  dignity,  we  find  the  majesty 
and  resplendent  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See, 

*  Act.  Sanct,  Tom  iv,  Sept.  23  c.  9  et  10. 

f  Hist.  Eccles.,  Saee.  iv. 

X  Thesaur.  Theolog.,  Tom  ii. 

i  Tillm.  Nat.  59  in  Arian. 


336  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

and  we  find  Liberius,  the  occupier  of  the  Chair 
of  Peter,  using  his  power  and  privileges  as  Su- 
preme Pontiff  to  condemn  and  cancel  the  errone- 
ous professions  of  one  thousand  Bishops,  or, 
rather,  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  to  confirm  his 
brethren,  whom  Satan  had  tried  to  sift  as  wheat. 

It  was  for  this  heroic  resistance  that  the  en- 
raged Emperor  Constantine  sent  Liberius  into 
exile,  and  harassed  him  with  vexations  and  per- 
secutions, to  escape  which,  as  they  pretend,  the 
defender  of  the  faith  finally  subscribed  an  Arian 
formula,  and,  on  his  return  to  Rome,  was  driven 
forth  again  by  the  Clergy  and  people.  That 
such  a  man,  after  so  heroic  a  resistance,  should 
have  fallen  so  low  as  to  subscribe  what  he  had 
denounced  and  condemned  in  others,  is  difiicult 
of  belief.     History  tells  a  different  tale. 

The  oldest  and  most  esteemed  historians  of 
the  Church,  such  as  Sulpicius  Severus,  Socrates, 
Sozomenus,  Theodoretus,  Menea,  Theophanes, 
Nicephorus,  and  Calistus,  have  not  a  word  con- 
cerning the  pretended  fall  of  Liberius.  Even 
Photius  does  not  speak  of  it,  and  he  certainly 
should  have  known  it,  and  would  have  used  it, 
had  there  been  any  hope  of  success.  On  the 
contrary,  all  these  historians  speak  quite  differ- 
ently of  Liberius,  and  ascribe  his  return  to 
Rome  to  another  reason,  and  describe  his  recep- 


OBJECTIONS    REFUTED.  337 

tion  in  a  very  different  way.  Theodoretus,  who, 
in  his  history  of  Ariauism,  made  use  of  the  writ- 
ings of  Athanasius,  calls  Liberius  an  illustrious 
and  glorious  champion  of  the  faith.  ^^Celeberri- 
mum  Liberium,  gloriosum  verUatis  athletamJ^  He 
ascribes  his  return  to  Rome,  not  to  a  heretical 
acquiescence,  but  to  the  petition  forwarded  to  the 
Emperor  from  the  noble  ladies  of  Rome,  and  to 
the  acclamation  of  the  people  at  the  amphithe- 
ater, urging  his  recall.  ^'Post  has  Christiancs 
plebis  aeelojmatio7ies  Liberium  ab  Imperatore  pos- 
tidantis  in  circOj  reversus  est  admirohilis  ilU 
Liberius.^' 

Sulpicius  Severus  also  account*  for  his  return 
by  the  commotions  and  revolts  of  the  Roman 
people,  clamorous  for  his  recall,  and  says  that 
the  Emperor  did  it  against  his  will,  ^'licd  invi- 
tasJ^  If  Liberius  had  professed  Arianism,  Con- 
stautine  would  have  let  him  return,  but  not  un- 
willingly, "  mvitus,^^  since  it  would  have  been  for 
himself  a  victory  and  triumph.  That  this  return, 
however,  may  have  become  in  time  a  matter  of 
suspicion  and  a  ground  of  the  accusation.  Is  pos- 
sible, if  not  probable.  Communications  were 
then  difficult  and  tardy,  and  the  Arians,  hearing 
of  his  recall,  may  have  spread  the  rumor  that  it 
could  only  be  accounted  for  by  his  recantation 
and  his  subscription  of  the  Arian  formula. 
29 


338  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

No,  the  Pontiff  who  had  withstood  one  thou- 
sand Bishops,  and  had  braved  exile  and  persecu- 
tion, could  not  have  accepted  such  ignominy  as 
finally  to  subscribe  what  he  himself  had  so  lately 
denominated  a  blasphemy,  *'  bldsphemam.^^ 

But  should  we,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
abandon  this  point,  our  thesis  would  not,  there- 
fore, be  overturned. 

There  are  two  things  objected  to  Liber i us: 
first,  that  he  cut  off  from  communion  with  him- 
self that  hero  of  Orthodoxy,  Athanasius;  and, 
second,  that  he  subscribed  the  formula  of  Syr- 
mia,  called  by  Hilarius,  ^'perfidiam  ArianamJ' 

Could  both  these  assertions  be  proved,  we  re- 
peat, they  would  not  affect  our  thesis. 

Not  the  first,  because,  to  exclude  another  from 
ecclesiastical  communion  is  not  a  definition  in 
matters  of  faith,  still  less  is  it  one  addressed  to 
the  whole  Church.  Even  though  such  an  ex- 
clusion should  be  groundless  and  unlawful,  it 
would  only  prove  the  peccability  of  the  Pope, 
not  his  fallibility  as  Pope.  But  the  fact  itself 
we  emphatically  deny.  It  is  in  evident  contra- 
diction with  his  enthusiastic  reception  at  Rome, 
where  the  people  and  clergy  sympathized  so  en- 
tirely with  him,  and  revolted  against  the  false 
Pope,  Felix,  intruded  into  the  See  during  the 
exile  of  Liberius,  because  he  communicated  with 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  339 

the  Arians,  the  mortal  enemies  of  Liberius  and 
Athanasius. 

Not  the  .second,  namely,  the  pretended  sub- 
scription to  the  heretical  formula  of  Syrmia,  for 
all  critics,  even  our  opponents,  are  obliged  to 
admit  that  if  Liberius  subscribed  at  all,  it  was 
to  the  first  formula  of  Syrmia,  which  Hilarius 
himself  admitted,  finding  fault  with  it  only  in 
this,  that  it  was  a  ^^perfidia,"  the  word  conmob- 
siantialis  having  been  purposely  omitted.  This 
would  not,  however,  render  it  heretical,  as  the 
same  fault  could  be  brought  against  the  Apostles^ 
Creed.  This  omission  in  the  formula  of  Syrmia 
was  a  perfidy  in  its  framers,  because  it  was  done 
for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  truth,  but  not 
necessarily  such  in  its  subscribers.  In  the  sub- 
scription there  might  be  matter  for  scandal,  in 
appearing  to  agree  in  matters  of  faith  with  the 
framers,  but  there  can  not  be  a  well-grounded 
charge  of  heresy.  And  had  Liberius  actually 
subscribed,  it  would  have  been  through  a  mis- 
taken judgment,  that  in  thus  securing  his  free- 
dom, through  a  subscription  which  bound  him 
to  nothing,  he  was  l>etter  enabled  to  aid  and  de- 
fend the  Church.  This,  however,  could  never  be 
cited  as  a  definition  in  faith  to  the  Universal 
Church. 

But  even  a  subscription  of  this  kind  can  not 


340  OBJECTIONS  EEFUTED. 

be  proved  against  Liberius,  since,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  most  reliable  historians  of  those  times 
attribute  his  return  from  exile  to  a  different 
cause.  He  can  not,  then,  be  stigmatized  as  a 
traitor  to  the  faith,  but  must  rather  be  accounted 
worthy  of  all  those  eulogies  conferred  upon  him 
by  the  Holy  Fathers.  St.  Ambrose  calls  him 
^^  Smietce  niemorice  mrum/'  a  man  of  holy  mem- 
ory; St.  Basil,  " beatissimum/^  most  blessed; 
Epiphanius  and  Pope  Siricius,  the  latter  in  his 
letter  to  Himeric,  call  him  "  blessed.^'  His  name 
is  found  in  different  Martyrologies,  as  in  that  of 
Beda,  of  Wandalbert,  and  even  in  those  of  the 
East,  the  Synaxarii  and  Menaeis,  where  his  feast 
is  marked  for  the  27  th  of  August. 

We  turn  now  to  the  case  of  Honorius,  first 
premising,  as  in  that  of  Liberius,  that  the  docu- 
ments from  which  our  opponents  borrow  their 
accusations,  are  very  open  to  more  than  suspicion 
of  fraud  and  fiction.  This  was  a  common  occur- 
rence among  the  Greeks  in  those  days  of  manu- 
scripts, of  slow  and  uncertain  communication, 
and  in  a  time,  moreover,  of  constantly  renewed, 
though  often  baffled  attempts  at  schism.  From 
the  earliest  times,  even  to  our  own  days,  critics 
have  agreed  as  to  the  difficulty  of  verifying  such 
documents.  But  this  we  may  safely  pass  over, 
since  our  position  is  too  strong  to  need  urging  the 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  341 

point.  Granting  all  that  our  opponents  would 
ask  as  to  the  genuineness  of  their  historical 
sources,  and  allowing  for  true  all  that  they  ob- 
ject against  Honorius,  even  then  the  truth  of 
our  thesis  remains  unimpaired.  A  close  exam- 
ination of  the  texts,  which  they  advance  in  sup- 
port of  the  charge,  suffices  to  place  the  truth  of 
our  propositions  in  a  clearer  light. 

The  facts  are  as  follows :  At  the  time  of  his 
Pontificate,  a  violent  dispute  arose  in  the  East 
concerning  the  two  wills  in  Christ  and  their 
operations.  Sergius,  the  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, was  the  originator  of  the  controversy;  he 
contended  that  in  Christ  there  was  but  one  will, 
that  of  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Divine  will,  which  wholly  absorbed  the  human 
will  of  Christ,  even  as  the  ocean  absorbs  a  drop 
of  wine  allowed  to  fall  into  its  waters. 

Our  adversaries  assert  that  Honorius  partici- 
pated in  this  error.  We  shall  see  with  what  right 
they  make  the  assertion. 

In  his  second  letter  to  Sergius,  Honorius  says : 
"  In  regard  to  the  dogma  of  the  Church,  we  must 
confess  that  in  Christ  there  were  two  natures 
joined  together  iu  natural  unity,  working  and 
cooperating  in  mutual  communion,  so  that  the 
divine  does  what  belongs  to  God,  and  the  human 
affects  what  belongs  to  the  flesh,  not  diversely, 


342  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

nor  confusedly,  not  saying  that  the  Divine  nature 
is  changed  into  man,  nor  the  human  nature  into 
God/'  "  Quantum  ad  dogma  ecdesiasticum  per- 
tinet,  TJTEASQUE  NATURAS  m  uno  Christo  unitate 
naturali  copulatas  cum  alterius  eommunione  ope- 
ranteSj  atque  operafrices  conjiteri  debemus^  et  divi- 
nam  quidem  quae  Dei  sunt  operantem^  et  humanam, 
quce  carnis  sunt  exequentem;  non  divise,  nee  con- 
fuse, aut  inconvertibiliter  Dei  naturam  in  homi- 
nem,  aut  humanam  in  Deum  conversam,  dicentes.^' 
And  immediately  after,  he  says :  "  That  the  two 
natures,  of  the  Divinity  and  of  the  assumed  flesh, 
in  the  one  Person  of  the  Only-begotten  Son  of 
God  the  Father,  exercise  their  appropriate  acts, 
without  confusion,  without  division,  and  without 
possibility  of  conversion/'  ^^Duas  naturas,  id 
est,  divinitatis  et  carnis  assumptoe  in  una  Persona 
Unigeniti  Dei  Patris,  inconfuse,  indivise,  incon- 
vertibiliter PROPRIA  operariJ' 

Is  not  this,  we  ask,  a  sufficiently  explicit 
declaration  and  confession  of  the  true  Catholic 
dogma?  Consequently,  when  in  his  first  letter 
to  Sergius,  Honorius  spoke  of  the  one  will,  he 
did  not  mean  the  one  Divine  will;  he  was 
speaking  of  the  human  will,  which  he  said  was 
not  divided  by  the  movements  of  passion,  such 
as  we  find  it  in  ourselves  through  the  fall  of 
Adam,  and  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks,  when  he 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  343 

says:  '^I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  war- 
ring against  the  law  of  my  mind;"*  and  again, 
*'for  the  good  which  I  will,  I  do  not,  but  the 
evil  which  I  will  not,  that  I  do,"  f 

Honorius  intended  to  say  that  Christ  had  as- 
sumed the  human  nature,  subject  to  human  suf- 
ferings, indeed,  but  not  with  that  division  of  the 
will  that  exists  in  us  as  a  consequence  of  the 
fall  of  our  first  parents,  and  which  subjects  us 
to  the  movements  of  inordinate  passions,  and  to 
disorders  leading  to  sin  by  our  rebellious  concu- 
piscence. That  this  was  the  meaning  of  Hono- 
rius is  confirmed  by  his  quotation  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Leo  the  Great  in  his  letter  to  Flavian : 
^^Agit  cnivi  ntraqne  forma  cum  alterius  communione 
quod  proprium  cM."  **  Each  nature  acts  accord- 
ing to  its  kind,  in  communion  with  the  other." 
Nobody  will  dare  to  say  that  Leo  was  infected 
by  Monothelism.  If,  then,  his  faith  be  sound  and 
his  words  correct,  as  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
acknowledged,  why  is  not  the  same  doctrine,  in 
the  same  form,  when  employed  by  Honorius  also 
correct?  But  it  does  not  rest  on  mere  conjecture, 
since  the  meaning  of  Honorius  is  attested  by  his 
contemporaries,  by  his  successors  in  the  Apos- 
tolic See,  and  by  the  most  illustrious  writers  of 
the  age.     John  IV,  the  second  successor  of  this 

*  Ad  Rom.  e.  vii,  p.  23.  f  Ibid,  19 


344  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

Pope,  asserts  it  in  the  apology  which  he  wrote 
of  his  maligned  predecessor.  St.  Maximus, 
martyr,  gives  us  the  testimony  of  the  Secretary 
of  Honorius,  the  inditer  of  the  first  letter,  and 
still  living  when  his  words  were  cited,  to  this 
effect:  "When  Sergius  wrote  that  thei^  were 
persons  who  asserted  that  in  Christ  there  were 
two  conflicting  wills,  Honorius  answered,  Christ 
had  only  one  will,  not  two  conflicting  wills,  that 
of  the  flesh  and  that  of  the  spirit,  as  we  have 
since  the  fall,  but  one  alone  which  was  natural 
to  His  humanity.  One  only,  we  said,  existed  in 
our  Lord,  not  of  the  divinity  and  humanity  to- 
gether, but  of  the  humanity  alone.'^  "  Qitum 
enim  Sergius  scripsisset,  esse,  qui  dicerent  in 
Christi  duos  contrarias  voluntates,  re^ondit 
Honw^ius,  unam  voluntatem  Oiristum  habuisse, 
71071  duos  contrarias  camiis  el  spiritus,  sicut  nos 
habemus  post  j^eccatumj  sed  unam  tanfum,  quas 

naturaliter  ejiis  humanitateni  insigniret 

Unam  vohmtatefin  diximus  in  Domino,  non  divini- 
tatis  et  humanitatis,  sed  humanitatis  dumtaxat.^^ 

Now,  it  is  St.  Maximus,  a  martyr,*  who  attests 
this  declamtion  of  the  Secretary,  and  says  of  him 
that  he  was  renowned  throughout  the  West,  for 
holiness.  We  could  desire  no  better  testimony 
in  favor  of  Honorius. 

*  Dial,  acl  Pyrrhum  ap.  Harduin,  Tom.  iii. 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  345 

But  if  we  inspect  the  letters  by  themselves, 
there  are  expressions  that  no  interpretation  can 
so  distort,  as  to  prevent  us  from  finding  these 
the  true  Catholic  dogma.  We  find  him  saying  : 
"  Because  certainly  the  Divinity  assumed  our 
nature,  not  our  fault;  that  nature  which  was 
created  before  sin,  not  that  which  was  vitiated 
by  prevarication.''  "  Quia  profecto  a  Dimnitate 
assumjjta  est  nostra  natura,  non  culpa :  ilia  pro- 
feotOy  quce  ante  peccaium  creata  est,  non  guce  post 
jjra^varicationem  vitiata.^^  Is  not  this  a  plain 
profession  of  Catholic  doctrine  as  against  Mon- 
othelism?  That  it  was  not  uncalled  for  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  even  in  our  own  days 
there  are  found  some,  as  the  followers  of  Dr. 
Guenther,  who  suppose  such  contradicting  wills 
to  have  existed  in  Christ,  and  even  the  possi- 
bility of  sin.* 

But  they  ask  us  whether  Honorius  was  not 
condemned  by  the  Sixth  CEcumenical  Synod, 
and  by  Leo  II,  in  his  letters  to  the  Bishops  of 
Spain  and  to  the  Emperor  Pogonatus?  We 
answer,  that  in  the  first  place,  learned  and  trust- 
worthy authors  have  proved  that  these  acts  of 
the  Council,  as  well  as  the  letters  of  Leo,  are 
open  to  the  gravest  suspicions  of  having  been 
fraudulently  changed  by  the  Greeks.    We  might 

*  See  Dr.  Pabst,  Temptations  of  Christ. 


348  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

therefore  first  require  our  adversaries  to  estab- 
lish their  historical  sources  on  a  more  evident 
and  substantial  basis.  As  they  can  not  do  it,  we 
shall  pass  over  the  difficulty,  and  admit,  for  dis- 
cussion's sake,  the  objection  as  it  is  proposed  by 
them.  Our  answer  is  positive.  The  Fathers 
of  the  Council,  and  St.  Leo,  did  not  condemn 
Honorius  for  having  promulgated  an  erroneous 
definition  of  faith  to  the  whole  Church,  nor  yet 
for  having  professed  Monothelism,  but  simply 
blamed  him  for  not  having  used  more  vigorous 
means  for  its  suppression,  and  by  imposing  si- 
lence on  the  disputants,  having  rather  favored 
and  increased  the  spread  of  that  heresy.  This 
is  the  very  expression  used  by  Leo  in  his  letters 
to  the  Spanish  Bishops;  "Who  has  not  extin- 
guished the  flame  of  heresy  in  its  very  commence- 
ment, as  in  his  Apostolical  dignity  he  should 
have  done,  but  by  his  negligence  favored  it." 
"  §m  flammam  hoeretici  dogmatis,  non  ut  decuerit 
Apostolicam  dignitatem  extinxit^  sed  negligentia 
confovU  f  " 

In  this  light,  and  in  no  other,  did  the  Fathers 
of  the  Council  regard  the  fault  of  Honorius. 
That  they  did  not  look  upon  him  as  an  adherent 
to  Monothelism,  is  evident  from  the  acts  of  the 
Council,  which  we  have  agreed  to  admit  as  gen- 
uine.    How,  otherwise,  could  Agatho,  in  the  face 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  347 

of  the  Council,  assert  that  the  Roman  See  had 
never  deviated  from  the  path  of  truth?  '' Hccg 
ApostoUca  Ecclesia  nunquam  a  via  veritatis  in 
quxilibet  erroris  parte  dejiexa  estJ^  How,  other- 
wise, could  he  insert,  in  his  instructions  to  his 
Legates,  that,  after  the  decision  contained  in  hi3 
dogmatical  letter  to  the  Council,  the  Fathers  could 
not  discuss  the  dogma,  but  must  simply  subscribe 
it  as  a  rule  of  faith  ?  *'  Non  tamquam  de  incer- 
tis  contendere y  sed  ut  certa  et  immutabilia  com- 
pendiosa  definitione  pro/erre."  We  have  seen 
with  what  joy  the  Fathers  obeyed  his  decree. 
If  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  had  asserted  or  be- 
lieved that  Honorius  had  erred,  they  certainly 
would  have  acted  in  another  manner,  and  would 
rather  have  invited  a  discussion  of  the  decree, 
since,  if  Honorius  had  erred,  the  same  might 
happen  to  Agatho.  Nobody  suggested  such  a 
course — not  even  the  defenders  of  Monothelism — 
knowing  too  well  that,  when  Rome  had  defini- 
tively spoken,  all  hesitation  and  doubt  had  to 
cease. 

There  is  not,  in  any  act  of  the  Council,  any 
thing  that  leads  us  to  believe  that  the  Fathers 
condemned  Honorius  for  having  held  the  Mo- 
nothelistic  error,  but  only  that  they  blamed  him 
for  having  temporized  with  Sergius,  and  for  hav- 
ing listened  to  his  advisers,  imposing  silence  on 


348  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

the  discussion,  instead  of  speaking  definitively, 
and  teaching  the  East  and  the  whole  Church 
what  they  had  to  believe. 

If  the  Greeks  themselves  believed  that  Hono- 
rius  had  taught  Monothelism,  the  Fathers  of  the 
Seventh  and  Eighth  General  Councils  in  the  East 
would  have  acted  differently  from  what  they  did. 
And  how  otherwise,  could  the  Papal  Legates,  in 
the  presence  of  the  assembled  Council,  call  upon 
the  Fathers  to  subscribe,  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  neither  reason  nor  faith  permitted  the  dis- 
cussion of  an  irrevocable  decision.  "  Quoniam 
de  irreformabili  judido  quceriy  nee  ratio  nee  fides 
permittiV 

It  is  only  under  the  same  supposition  that  we 
can  account  for  the  action  of  Adrian  II  toward 
the  Eighth  General  Council,  in  the  time  of  Pho- 
tius,  in  sending  them  a  letter  for  their  subscrip- 
tion, which  contained  the  following  declarations : 
"  First  of  all,  true  salvation  is  found  in  keeping 
the  right  rule  of  faith,  which  is  to  submit  to  the 
decisions  of  the  Apostolic  See,  according  to  the 
promises  of  Christ  to  Peter,  '  Thou  art  a  rock,' '' 
etc.  That  this  is  true  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
the  Apostolic  See  has  always  preserved  the  Cath- 
olic religion  immaculate,  and  professed  its  holy 
doctrine.  '^Quia  in  Sede  Apostolica  immacidafa 
est  semper  Catholica  servata  religio  et  sanda  cele- 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  349 

brata  dodrina.^^  Photius  certainly  was  not  the 
man  to  have  been  ignorant  of  the  fall  of  Houo- 
rius  into  Monothelism,  and,  knowing  it,  to  have 
foregone  the  advantage  of  objecting  it  against  an 
assertion  that  silenced  him.  Yet  neither  he  nor 
the  Fathers  of  the  Council  had  one  word  to  say 
of  his  case,  nor  objected  to  the  "  rule  of  faith  ^'  as 
proposed  by  Adrian,  but  subscribed  in  the  mem- 
orable way  that  history  has  made  known  to  us. 

The  Orientals,  seeing  their  Patriarchs  from 
time  to  time  passing  under  censure  for  heresy — 
as  well  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  as  those 
of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem,  would 
have  been  very  glad  to  make  use  of  such  an  op- 
portunity, as  our  adversaries  think  was  presented 
in  Honorius,  to  reproach  the  See  of  Rome  with 
the  same  fault,  especially  at  the  time  of  the  great 
schism.  It  may  very  well  be,  too,  that  this  was 
the  secret  source  of  whatever  blame  they  at- 
tached to  Honorius  in  the  Sixth  Council. 

We  believe  that  we  have  made  it  as  clear  as 
any  historical  fact  can  be,  that,  whatever  our 
adversaries  may  object,  they  can  not,  at  least, 
adduce  Honorius  as  an  instance  of  a  Pope 
*'  teaching  an  error  or  giving  an  erroneous  def- 
initiony  to  the  whole  Church,  in  matters  of  faith, ''^ 
The  most  they  can  show  is  a  negligence,  on  his 
part,    in  making   use  of  his  Apostolic   power, 


350  OBJECTIONS  REFUTED. 

under  the  circumstances  in  which  he  found  him- 
self. But  this  does  not  affect  our  thesis,  which 
was  simply  the  infallibility  of  the  Head  of  the 
Church  when  teaching  or  defining  a  matter  of 
faith  as  taught  by  the  Church,  and  explicitly 
proposed  as  such  to  the  faithful.  That  Honorius 
did  nothing  to  impugn  this,  is  manifest  from  the 
very  charge  which  is  made  against  him,  the  si- 
lencing of  discussion,  and  the  refusal  to  define. 

We  might  go  even  farther  and  say,  that,  had 
the  Fathers  of  the  Council  called  him  heretic,  it 
would  not  have  been  sufficient  to  disprove  our 
thesis,  because,  in  those  days,  that  name  was 
given  not  alone  to  those  who  held  heretical  opin- 
ions, but  even  to  such  as  seemed  to  favor  here- 
tics ;  and  because  so  long  as  they  attacked  Hon- 
orius the  man,  not  Honorius  teaching  or  defin- 
ing ex  cathedra,  it  would  have  been  still  insuffi- 
cient. 

And,  now,  we  propose  to  close  our  discussion 
of  this  case,  the  most  difficult  and  the  strongest 
that  our  adversaries  could  have  selected  from  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  with  these  few  reflections. 
So  far  from  having  disturbed  our  thesis,  it  rather 
strengthens  it  by  sliowing  how  important  and 
necessary  such  a  privilege  in  the  Holy  See  be- 
comes in  times  of  dangerous  heresy,  and  that  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council  looked  upon  it  in  this 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  351 

light,  and  blamed  Honorius  for  not  exercising  it. 
And  this  blame  becomes,  then,  considered  in  the 
light  of  Divine  Providence,   a  warning  to   his 
successors  to  be  vigilant  in  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  intrusted  to  them.     And,  should  we  give 
full  license  to  suppositions,  admitting  that  Hon- 
orius was  at  heart  a  Monotheh'te,  though  this  is 
impossible,  after  a  consideration  of  our  quota- 
tions, it  would  then  show  the  overjx>wering  di- 
rection of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Church,  which, 
in   such    a   case,    prevented   a   definition   which 
would  have  trenched  upon  the  dogma  of  Catholic 
faith.     One  thing  more  we  would  wish  to  say. 
Even  as  the  lives  of  some  Popes  have  been  such 
as  were  unworthy  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  and 
have  thus  proved  that  the  veneration  and  hom- 
age, which  the  Catholic  world  continued  to  pay 
them,  were  awarded  not  to  the  man,  but  to  the 
office ;  so,  too,  the  submission  and  obedience  uni- 
formly given  to  the  decisions  of  the  Roman  Pon- 
tiff, apart  from  all  question  of  whom  he  was  that 
occupied  the  Holy  See,  should  convince  us  that 
it  is  the  office,  and  the  prerogatives  of  that  office, 
that  ask  for  and  obtain  the  acquiescence  of  Cath- 
olic faith  to  its  Apostolic  definitions  and  teachings. 
It   would  be  superfluous   for  us  to  consider 
other  cases  sometimes  insisted  upon,   since   our 
adversaries    should   be  content   with    Bossuet's 


352  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

opinion,  as  found  in  his  ^^  Defense,"  that  they 
are  not  worth  discussing. 

OBJECTION  X. 

"  Why  has  not  the  Church  defined  this  thesis 
to  be  an  article  of  faith  f 

Answer. — "  Sigjia  Gentibus  " — "  definitiones 
hcereticis,''  that  is,  as  St.  Paul  tells  us,  wonders 
are  for  the  heathen,  who,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  needed  visible  proofs 
of  the  Divinity  of  the  Gospel ;  the  faithful  do 
not  need  wonders,  since  they  possess  the  gift  of 
faith,  they  do  not  need  definitions,  except  on  oc- 
casions of  doubt  or  discussion ;  as  a  general  rule, 
the  ordinary  teaching  of  the  Church  suffices  for 
them.  When,  however,  new  errors  are  spring- 
ing up,  questions  never  before  discussed  are  agi- 
tated, or  an  obstiyate  and  dangerous  denial  of 
truth  in  matters  of  faith  is  prevailing,  then  the 
Church  defines  what  is  to  be  believed  or  rejected 
by  the  faithful.  But,  even  then,  directed  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  her  counsels  are  moderate,  and  her 
Avays  are  wise  and  prudent,  lest  hasty  and  ill- 
judged  measures  should  convert  erring  souls 
into  obstinate  heretics.  In  matters  almost  self- 
evident,  or  so  easily  deducible  from  her  ordinary 
teaching,  that  the  least  reflecting  mind  can  discern 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  353 

the  truth,  the  Church  imitates  the  examples  of  the 
Apostles.  In  the  very  outset  they  defined  very 
few  articles — those  contained  in  the  ApostW 
Creed,  and  the  question  agitated  in  the  Council 
of  Jerusalem. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  the  Church  has  not  yet  met  an  occasion  in 
which  such  definition  seemed  practically  neces- 
sary, since  they  who  refused  obedience  to  a  Papal 
decision  refused  it  likewise  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Universal  Church;  and  they  who  obeyed  the 
Church  have  not  refused  assent  to  the  voice  of 
the  Holy  See.  It  has  never  desired  by  an  un- 
called-for decision  to  provoke  an  untimely  and 
dangerous  controversy,  such  as  threatened,  for 
awhile,  to  arise  in  the  midst  of  the  Clergy  of 
France. 

In  the  Council  of  Florence,  w^hen  there  was  a 
fresh  attempt  to  reconcile  the  schismatical  East, 
the  wisest  precautions  were  taken  so  to  express 
the  truth,  that  while  it  should  not  be  denied  or 
silenced,  it  would  not  be  couched  in  such  terms 
as  needlessly  to  excite  the  susceptibilities  of  the 
Greeks.  But  even  there  the  definition  was  such 
as  implicitly  to  embrace  our  thesis,  since  it  was 
declared  one  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  that  he  should  be  the  Supreme 
Judge  in  matters  of  faith.  It  says :  ''  That  the 
30 


354  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

Roman  Pontiff  is  the  Teacher  of  all  the  faithful, 
and  that  on  him,  in  the  person  of  the  blessed  Pe- 
ter, has  been  conferred  full  power,  to  feed,  direct, 
and  govern  the  Universal  Church/'  ^' Definimus 
Romanum  PontiJiceTii  omnium  Christianorum  Dog- 
torem  existere,  et  ipsi,  in  beato  Petro,  pascendi, 
regendi,  gubernandi  universalem  JEcclesiam  ple~ 
nam  potestatem  traditam  esseJ^ 

We  ask  whether  this  definition  does  not  at 
least  implicitly  contain  our  thesis,  when  it  affirms 
that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  the  divinely-commis- 
sioned Teacher  of  all  Christians,  of  every  one, 
and  therefore  of  the  Bishops,  who  are  preemi- 
nently Christian.  Just  as  Christ,  addressing 
Peter,  said,  "  Feed  my  sheep — feed  my  lambs,'^ 
He  made  him  pastor  of  the  pastors ;  words  which 
our  readers  will  remember  that  we  quoted  from 
Eucherius. 

The  Council,  defining,  says,  that  Christ  gave 
to  the  Pope  full  power,  "plenam  potestatem/^  to 
feed,  to  direct,  and  to  govern  the  Universal 
Church.  If  so,  then  He  imposed  lipon  the  Uni- 
versal Church  the  obligation  of  following  his 
directions,  teaching,  and  orders,  and  to  the  Uni- 
versal Church,  the  Hierarchy  certainly  belongs. 
Now,  if  with  this  obligation  on  the  Church, 
Christ  had  not  conferred  upon  the  Pope  an  in- 
fallible freedom  from  error  when  teaching  the 


OBJECTIONS   EEFUTED.  355 

Universal  Church,  it  would  follow  that  He  had 
obliged  the  Church  to  obey  that  Roman  Pon- 
tiff' even  though  he  led  it  into  errors.  If  He 
conferred  the  privilege,  subject  to  the  assent  of 
the  Church  dispersed  or  assembled,  then  He  did 
not  confer,  as  the  Council  says,  full  power,  "ple- 
nam  potestaiemJ^ 

We  may  very  well  conclude,  then,  that  if  tlie 
Church  has  not  explicitly  defined  our  thesis  As 
an  article  of  faith,  it  has  at  least  laid  it  down 
j)lainly  enough  to  satisfy  any  Catholic  of  clear, 
logical  mind,  and  of  good  will. 

Well  then,  they  may  say,  ever)'  one  who  con- 
tradicts your  thesis  should  be  accounted  a  here- 
tic? This  consequence,  in  common  with  all  the- 
ologians, we  deny,  because,  to  become  a  heretic, 
the  doctrine  denied,  must  have  been  expressly 
and  explicitly  defined  to  be  an  article  of  faith. 
The  Church  most  wisely  and  prudently  refrains, 
as  we  have  said  before,  from  some  explicit  decla- 
rations, which  might  perhaps  provoke  an  evil 
which  she  always  prefers  rather  to  avert  than  to 
repress. 

If  up  to  this  time  the  Church,  enlightened  and 
directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  not  deemed  it 
expedient  to  define  this  Right  and  Privilege  of 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  it  does  not  follow  that  that 
time  will  never  come,  and  that  the  present  may 


356  OBJECTIONS   EEFUTED. 

not  be  the  very  one  that  will  induce  her  to  do 
so.  And,  indeed,  some  circumstances  might  lead 
us  to  supix)se  so,  when  we  consider  that  the  ene- 
mies of  the  Church,  now,  more  than  ever,  direct 
their  principal  fury  against  the  Authority  of  the 
Pope.  In  trying  to  deprive  him  of  his  Tempo- 
ral Sovereignty  they  really  aspire  to  weaken  his 
spiritual  authority.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that 
every  thing  should  be  done  to  strengthen  his  posi- 
tion, especially  in  his  Spiritual  dominion.  And 
then,  even  in  the  supposition  which  we  made  in 
our  Introduction,  of  his  losing  his  temjwral  sov- 
ereignty, the  faithful,  remaining  nnited  to  him  as 
their  Spiritual  Head,  with  increased  devotion, 
obedience,  and  love,  with  all  the  strength  of  liv- 
ing faith,  nothing  could  happen  in  the  way  of 
salvation,  which  could  endanger  their  souls,  and 
prevent  their  final  triumph  over  all  the  visible 
and  invisible  enemies  of  the  Church.  Persecution 
itself  would  then  prove  a  spiritual  advantage, 
and  strenocthen  them  to  fio-ht  as  true  soldiers  of 
Christ,  members  of  the  Church  militant,  that 
glorious  battle,  the  reward  of  which  is  the  crown 
of  heavenly  victory  and  eternal  bliss. 

In  the  pressing  danger  of  a  fearful  battle,  no 
one  doubts  the  necessity  of  listening  to  the 
command  of  a  supreme  chief,  w4ien  every  help 
and    direction    is   required   in   the   varied   and 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  357 

shifting  scenes  of  doubtful  struggle ;  how  much 
more  so,  where  the  warfare  is  for  an  eternal 
stake,  and  the  commander  is  one  of  whom  we 
know  that  he  can  not  err. 

We,  at  least,  therefore,  should  not  be  surprised, 
if,  in  a  General  Council  of  all  the  Bishops  assem- 
bled around  him,  in  oixler  to  consider  the  grievous 
wants  of  our  age,  and  the  means  to  meet  them, 
the  present  Supreme  Pontiff  should  make  use  of 
their  practical  influence  to  promulgate  this  his 
right  and  privilege  in  matters  of  faith.  And, 
we  repeat  it,  the  reverence  and  obedience  which 
we  owe  to  the  rest  of  the  Episcopacy,  would  be 
thereby  not  diminished,  but  increased;  because, 
however  great  the  luster  that  surrounds  the  Ro- 
man Ponfiff,  it  is  reflected  upon  the  entire  Epis- 
copacy, since  he  is  invested  with  supernatural 
dignity  and  power,  because  he  is  a  Bishop — the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  As  the  personal  dignity  of 
any  one  Bishop  is  not  diminished  but  increased, 
when  standing  in  the  assembly  of  hundreds  of 
his  brethren,  so  neither  is  it  lessened  by  the 
power  and  the  majesty  of  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  which  comes  to  him  through  his  con- 
secration to  the  Episcopacy,  of  which  any  one, 
and  every  Bishop,  is  a  partaker.  So  far  from  di- 
minishing, it  increases  the.authority  of  the  other 
Bishops,  as  we  have  already  observed,  since  it  is 


358  OBJECTIONS   EEFUTED. 

evidently  more  glorious  and  independent  to  be 
subject  to  07ie  than  to  many.  And,  in  the  sup- 
position of  the  infallibility  being  invested  in  a 
General  Council,  he  would  have  to  submit  his 
judgment  in  matters  of  faith  to  hundreds  or 
thousands  of  his  equals^  and  thereby  proclaim 
himself  their  inferior  or  subject.  Whereas,  in 
our  supposition,  he  could,  as  at  the  Council  of 
Rimini,  stand  up  in  judgment  against  a  thousand 
of  his  equals  and  refuse  to  submit,  except  to  one 
who  is  invested  with  the  character  of  represent- 
ing the  Master  and  Founder  of  the  Faith. 

Moreover,  it  must  be  a  satisfaction  to  every 
Bishop,  that  the  world  sees,  and  must  see,  the 
reason  of  his  submitting,  reasonably  and  per- 
force, to  the  Supreme  Pontiff  when  defining  an 
article  of  faith;  that  it  is  not  through  human 
respect  or  servility,  but  through  a  simple  sense 
of  duty,  based  upon  a  foundation,  solid  and 
illustrious,  such  as  we  have  endeavored  to  lay 
bare  in  this  our  treatise. 

So  we  think  that  we  have  placed  the  truth  of 
our  thesis  in  the  light  of  evidence  so  strong,  that 
no  logical  thinker,  who  believes  in  the  infallibility 
of  the  Church,  can  ever  deny  it  without  throwing 
himself  into  the  darkness  of  self-contradiction. 

In  publishing  this  treatise,  our  primary  aim 
was  to  address  the  Kev.  Clergy;  as  it  is  a  dog- 


OBJEcrriONS  refuted.  359 

matic  flisciission.  Nevertheless,  the  book  has  an 
universal  interest  for  all  Catholics ;  because  it  is 
so  closely  connected  with  the  interest  and  the 
welfare  of  the  Church,  that  they  call  their 
mother. 

Nay,  even  for  the  non-Catholics  this  discus- 
sion may  be  of  no  little  importance  and  useful- 
ness; because  all  that  we  said  in  defense  of  our 
thesis,  refers  to  the  great  principle  of  a  sufficient, 
leading,  and  teaching  authority. 

This  principle,  thoroughly  understood,  settles 
at  once  the  right  of  a  Divine  Church  to  claim 
an  inflillible  teaching  authority,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  shows  evidently  the  obligation  on  all  to  be- 
long to  this  Divine  Church. 

In  proof  of  this,  we  have  only  to  call  the 
attention  of  every  logical  thinker  to  the  analogy 
existing  between  the  natural  and  supernatural 
order. 

Now,  even  in  the  natural  order,  man  could 
not  believe,  as  a  rational  being,  without  the 
guidance  of  a  leading  teaching  authority,  which 
is  reason.  Every  one  denying  this  would  con- 
demn himself  to  the  lunatic  asylum. 

Therefore,  by  the  force  of  his  own  reason, 
man,  "  a  priori,'^  should  infer  and  expect,  that  if 
God  pleased  to  communicate,  through  Revelation 
to  mankind,  truths  belonging  to  the  supernat- 


360  OBJECTIONS  EEFUTED. 

ural  order,  that  He  would  have  provided  also 
a  sufficient  leading  and  teaching  authority  for 
his  guidance. 

But  this  sufficient  teaching  authority,  in  re- 
gard to  truths  belonging  to  the  supernatural 
order,  must  be  of  an  infallible  character;  be- 
cause, as  the  supernatural  order  surpasses  the 
sphere  of  his  reason,  in  order  to  believe  reason- 
ably he  must  have  an  infallible  guide,  whom 
he  can  trust  entirely,  as  he,  for  himself,  abso- 
lutely can  not  decide  on  the  tenets  of  revealed 
truth.  An  uncertain  and  fallible  authority  in 
this  regard  would  be  no  authority  at  all;  be- 
cause, as  it  could  err  in  one  tenet,  it  could  err 
in  another,  and  so  in  all. 

Therefore,  any  logical  mind  must,  "  a  j^riori/' 
expect  that  a  Divine  Church,  teaching  truths 
belonging  to  the  supernatural  order,  must  bring 
with  it  the  claims  of  an  infallible  teaching  au- 
thority; and  that  any  Church  not  claiming  such 
authority  gives  up  at  once  all  right  to  be  con- 
sidered a  Divine  Church. 

This  logical  inference,  rightly  appreciated, 
may  become,  for  a  sincere  inquirer  after  truth, 
a  powerful  motive  for  a  serious  examination,  and 
bring  him  finally  to  the  recognition  of  the  Di- 
vine character  of  the  Catholic  Church,  claiming 
that  privilege  of  infallible  authority. 


OBJECTIONS  REPUTED.  361 

But  this  result,  in  favor  of  the  Catholic 
Church  would  at  once  be  paralyzed  and  stopped 
for  a  logical  mind,  if  he  would  be  required  to 
adopt  the  opinion  of  our  adversaries,  placing 
the  prerogative  of  infallibility  in  the  authority 
of  a  General  Council,  or  in  the  consent  of  the 
"  Church  dispersed.'^ 

According  to  what  we  said,  he  would  have 
the  right  to  sneer  at  an  Infallible  Judge  who 
has  no  tribunal  to  which,  at  all  times,  the  faith- 
ful could  address  themselves,  and  who  has  no 
organ  to  answer  distinctly  and  with  infallible 
certainty;  and  hence  would  have  the  right  to 
say,  that  God  had  provided  for  man  in  the 
natural  order  far  better  than  in  the  supernatural. 
A  stringently  logical  mind  would  look  to  such 
an  infallible  guidance  as  mockery ;  because,  the 
bearer  of  that  infallibility  would  be,  in  many 
cases,  without  ears  to  hear,  and  would  never 
have  a  tongue  to  give  a  final  answer. 

Moreover,  as  the  Church,  claiming  to  be  infal- 
lible, has,  in  the  Council  of  Florence,  defined 
the  Pope  to  be  her  teacher,  in  case  he  could 
err,  we  would  have  an  infallible  Church  with  a 
fallible  teacher,  and  the  disciple  would  know 
more  than  the  teacher,  which  kind  of  contradic- 
tions and  absurdities  a  logical  mind  can  never 
admit. 


362  OBJECTIOKS   REFUTED. 

On  the  contrary,  by  adopting  our  thesis,  rea- 
son admires  the  wisdom  of  the  Divine  founder 
of  the  Holy  Church,  who  adapted  the  means  so 
well  and  efficiently  to  reach  the  end,  giving  to 
the  Church  a  visible  and  accessible  tribunal  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  an  unerriug,  visible,  and 
accessible  Jud^e. 

•The  reflecting  reader  will  easily  perceive,  that 
this  our  last  remark,  is  an  additional  argument 
to  the  preceding  chapter  on  the  "Ratio  Theo- 
logica,"  or,  ''Evidence  from  Reason,'^  and  com- 
pletes its  logical  and  invincible  strength. 

All  that  our  opponents  object,  or  can  object  to 
our  thesis,  are  but  as  shooting  stars  or  baleful  me- 
teors, gleaming  or  glaring  for  a  moment  in  the 
firmament  of  truth,  then  disappearing  in  the 
darkness,  w^hile  the  fixed  and  glowing  stars  of 
solid  reason  and  argument,  which  they  seemed 
for  awhile  to  equal  or  outshine,  remain  in  all 
their  cloudless  brilliancv.  And  crowning:  all 
the  glories  in  that  firmament  of  truth  is  the 
steady,  brilliant  light  of  tradition — that  com- 
mon living  conscience  of  the  Church,  of  all  na- 
tions and  peoples,  succeeding  from  generation  to 
generation.  Nineteen  hundred  years  have  almost 
elapsed,  and  yet,  echoing  through  the  centuries, 
we  hear  the  hallowed  voice  of  Christ : 


OBJECTIONS   REFUTED.  363 

"  Peter,  thou  art  a  rock,  and  on  this 

ROCK  I  WILL  BUILD  MY  ChURCH,  AND  THE 
GATES  OF  HELL  SHALL  NOT  PREVAIL  AGAINST 
IT.      To   THEE   SHALL  I  COMMIT   THE  KEYS  OF 

HEAVEN.  Feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  sheep." 
And  those  gates  of  hell  have  never  prevailed, 
and  still  that  rock  endures,  in  the  time  of  Pius 
IX,  as  in  the  days  of  Peter.  The  keys  of 
Heaven  are  still  held  on  earth,  and  now,  as  then, 
the  faithful  turn  listening  ears  and  wistful  looks 
to  the  voice  and  sign  of  Pius  IX  as  they  would 
to  those  of  Peter,  when  he  warns  them  of  im- 
pending evils  or  directs  them  to  wholesome  pas- 
turage. Still,  now  as  then,  Peter  confirms  his 
brethren,  as  when  the  assembled  Bishops  raised* 
their  acclaim  to  Pius  IX,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
proclamation  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception,  and  used  the  self-same  words; 
^'  Speak,  Peter;  confirm  thy  brethren.^' 

Now,  as  nineteen  hundred  years  ago,  the 
Church  remains  the  same,  and  the  reason  is  found 
in  the  words  of  St.  Augustin,  of  which  our  thesis 
is  the  practical  development.  Number  the  Su- 
preme Pontiifs  on  the  Chair  of  Peter — ipsa  est 
petra — that  is,  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is 
built.  Thus,  and  thus  only,  does  the  Church 
remain  infallible.  Deprive  her  of  her  Head, 
with    all    its    powers    and    privileges,   and    all 


364  OBJECTIONS   REFUTED. 

her  majesty  and  intrepid  firmness  depart  with 
them. 

And  so  long  as  the  Church  is  permitted  to 
pray,    as   on    the    Parasceve,    "Almighty    and 
Eternal  God,  in  whose  judgment  all  things  are 
founded,  mercifully  receive  our  prayers,  that  the 
Christian  people  who  are  governed  by  Thee,  their 
Author,    under   so   great  'a   Pontiff— su6   tanto 
Fontifice — may  reap  the  reward  of  their  fidelity  " — 
so  long  as  that  prayer  is  heard,  as  heard  it  will 
be,  and  the  Church  enjoys  the  protection  of  such 
a  Leader  and  Teacher,  she  has  nothing  to  fear — 
not  even  in  the  gloom  that  shall  herald  and  ac- 
company the  great  persecutor.  Antichrist. 
»    The  children  of  the  Church  will  always  look 
calmly  to  the  future,  knowing  that  the  end  shall 
surely  come,  when  all  the  sons  of  men  shall  be- 
hold, with  the  same  reverence,  the  Supreme  Pon- 
tiff; when  there  shall  be  only  one  fold  and  one 
Shepherd,  the  Representative  on  earth  of  the 
One,  Incarnate,  Infallible,  Eternal 
Truth. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 
Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recall. 


\  ?a  ;> 


^^~     ^jn-m^ 


R£C'D  U 


mi  m  4 


m.at    FEBi   7r 


T  7)91  A-^nm  9  '71  General  Library 


